The authoritiarian manifesto
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
When looking at old societies like the ancient roman empire you often find something drawing you there, there is something very appealing with these societies that we don't get in boring modern left-liberal societies.
With authoritarianism you don't need to wait months/years for courts to maybe stop something the president wanted to do. Under full authoritarianism there isn't any separations of powers in the first place, the government has the full highest authority over the area the hopefully growing territory they control.
people will worship their leaders as gods and follow them as they lead their nation to true greatness. People will be part of something greater than themselves.
With authoritarianism the people are accountable to the gods but gods and gods in turn are responsible to the higher process of societal survival of the fittest.
The authority of the leaders will be absolute, they leaders will have the ultimate ownership over the ever expanding territory that will eventually eclipse the entire planet.
The leaders will ensure to carry out brutal punishments against the heretics that defile their godhood. People will all learn how great the leaders are from the schools and media controlled by the government.
The wast power of the ruling elite or autocrat will shape the entire society and eventually the entire world. Eventually only true gods will remain as false gods as brutally weeded out in conventional and nuclear wars.
Males will gladly go to war and often die to serve their gods. As they are fighting they know that what they are doing is serving humanity and eventually with total control over the planet wars will all end.
With authoritarianism you don't need to wait months/years for courts to maybe stop something the president wanted to do. Under full authoritarianism there isn't any separations of powers in the first place, the government has the full highest authority over the area the hopefully growing territory they control.
people will worship their leaders as gods and follow them as they lead their nation to true greatness. People will be part of something greater than themselves.
With authoritarianism the people are accountable to the gods but gods and gods in turn are responsible to the higher process of societal survival of the fittest.
The authority of the leaders will be absolute, they leaders will have the ultimate ownership over the ever expanding territory that will eventually eclipse the entire planet.
The leaders will ensure to carry out brutal punishments against the heretics that defile their godhood. People will all learn how great the leaders are from the schools and media controlled by the government.
The wast power of the ruling elite or autocrat will shape the entire society and eventually the entire world. Eventually only true gods will remain as false gods as brutally weeded out in conventional and nuclear wars.
Males will gladly go to war and often die to serve their gods. As they are fighting they know that what they are doing is serving humanity and eventually with total control over the planet wars will all end.
Great sexual experiences under authoritarianism
It's very common for people to fantasize sexually dominating others or being sexually dominated themselves.
Often people try things like BDSM in a futile attempt to get the joy or brutal sexual domination. This fake domination cannot however measure up to the real thing.
What we really want is real sexual domination. Females being groped and humiliated in public for being single/lesbian. Young girls forcefully impregnated, males forcefully injected with estrogen and turned into cute girls for people to humiliate and dominate.
It's very common for people to fantasize sexually dominating others or being sexually dominated themselves.
Often people try things like BDSM in a futile attempt to get the joy or brutal sexual domination. This fake domination cannot however measure up to the real thing.
What we really want is real sexual domination. Females being groped and humiliated in public for being single/lesbian. Young girls forcefully impregnated, males forcefully injected with estrogen and turned into cute girls for people to humiliate and dominate.
Citizen classes
Humans can be divided into the following classes
An: senator of rank n
Bn: first successor to senator n
BmN+n: successor m+1 to senator n
C0: approved by the senate for high-level service.
C1: citizen allowed to carry light weapons.
C2: full citizenship.
C3: permanent residence.
C4: temporary residence (can be extended by paying fee).
D0: very high-value individuals under guardianship/custody (owned by senator or B-citizen).
D1: high-value slave/child (owned by C1 or higher).
D2: slave/child you are not allowed to injure (minor punishments allowed).
D3: slave not allowed to be killed or seriously injure (loss of limb, brain-damage, sterilized, etc).
D4: slave you are not allowed to kill or give serious brain-damage.
D5: slave with no rights.
Em: less/no rights, class m
Fq: military target of value {F0 value}*10^(q/10)
N = the number of senators
0 ⩽ n < N
Humans can be divided into the following classes
An: senator of rank n
Bn: first successor to senator n
BmN+n: successor m+1 to senator n
C0: approved by the senate for high-level service.
C1: citizen allowed to carry light weapons.
C2: full citizenship.
C3: permanent residence.
C4: temporary residence (can be extended by paying fee).
D0: very high-value individuals under guardianship/custody (owned by senator or B-citizen).
D1: high-value slave/child (owned by C1 or higher).
D2: slave/child you are not allowed to injure (minor punishments allowed).
D3: slave not allowed to be killed or seriously injure (loss of limb, brain-damage, sterilized, etc).
D4: slave you are not allowed to kill or give serious brain-damage.
D5: slave with no rights.
Em: less/no rights, class m
Fq: military target of value {F0 value}*10^(q/10)
N = the number of senators
0 ⩽ n < N
Governance
The A-citizens will decide which decisions they will prioritize. A lot of government decisions such as court cases will not actually reach any a-ziticens, it will instead be decided by a court where all the jury members are appointed by an a-citizen or by a single person appointed by an a-citizen.
You can for example have a 5 of 9 senators appoint a member of a lower court, and allow appeals to higher court, then of course only jury members will be allowed to appeal.
The people appointed by a senator will get nice B-citizenship.
If you have 15 senators or more you can sub-dicide the senate into smaller specialized bodies such as court0, court1, court2. You can for example divice 63 senators into 9 courts with 7 members each. Some cases will be appealed to the full senate but most will not reach that.
By default launching nuclear weapons will require a majority of the senate to approve of the strike but the threschould can be lowed for problematic areas/countries (allowing strikes to be launched slighly quicker).
https://vintologi.com/threads/elite-rule.24/
The A-citizens will decide which decisions they will prioritize. A lot of government decisions such as court cases will not actually reach any a-ziticens, it will instead be decided by a court where all the jury members are appointed by an a-citizen or by a single person appointed by an a-citizen.
You can for example have a 5 of 9 senators appoint a member of a lower court, and allow appeals to higher court, then of course only jury members will be allowed to appeal.
The people appointed by a senator will get nice B-citizenship.
If you have 15 senators or more you can sub-dicide the senate into smaller specialized bodies such as court0, court1, court2. You can for example divice 63 senators into 9 courts with 7 members each. Some cases will be appealed to the full senate but most will not reach that.
By default launching nuclear weapons will require a majority of the senate to approve of the strike but the threschould can be lowed for problematic areas/countries (allowing strikes to be launched slighly quicker).
https://vintologi.com/threads/elite-rule.24/
Fun punishments
There are many entertaining ways in which you can punish people you dislike. You can for example reduce them to property of perverts/sadists who will then take pleasure out of tourmenting them.
People can be forced to participate in large team battles in the gladiator arena where the battle doesn't end until everyone of one team is dead.
You can feed people you dislike to lions and watch them scream as they are attacked and eaten. We can give them neck-protection to prevent them lion from quickly killing them.
People can also forced to work for the government such as by doing sex-work.
People can be given fines and if they then cannot pay them the consequences will be brutal. The money collected from fines can be used to finance entertainment for the masses such as gladiator games.
There are many entertaining ways in which you can punish people you dislike. You can for example reduce them to property of perverts/sadists who will then take pleasure out of tourmenting them.
People can be forced to participate in large team battles in the gladiator arena where the battle doesn't end until everyone of one team is dead.
You can feed people you dislike to lions and watch them scream as they are attacked and eaten. We can give them neck-protection to prevent them lion from quickly killing them.
People can also forced to work for the government such as by doing sex-work.
People can be given fines and if they then cannot pay them the consequences will be brutal. The money collected from fines can be used to finance entertainment for the masses such as gladiator games.
Maintaining order
It's very important to prevent rebellions/criminality. This is not just about people facing brutal consequences when committing severe crimes, it's also about things like education and control over media.
All important medial should be controlled by the government, not just traditional media but also social media.
Many people will need to be sent to re-education camps to they can be freed from their problematic delusions. There will be specialized re-education camps to tackle specific problematic false beliefs.
People will be expected to show respect for senators, otherwise there will be consequences.
We need to look into which if any hormonal alternatives that can be effective in preventing people from engaging in problematic behaviours. Estrogen and progesterone in particular are very interesting hormones for controlling people. We need to do randomized controlled trials on forced HRT so se if that actually causes people born male to behave better.
It's very important to prevent rebellions/criminality. This is not just about people facing brutal consequences when committing severe crimes, it's also about things like education and control over media.
All important medial should be controlled by the government, not just traditional media but also social media.
Many people will need to be sent to re-education camps to they can be freed from their problematic delusions. There will be specialized re-education camps to tackle specific problematic false beliefs.
People will be expected to show respect for senators, otherwise there will be consequences.
We need to look into which if any hormonal alternatives that can be effective in preventing people from engaging in problematic behaviours. Estrogen and progesterone in particular are very interesting hormones for controlling people. We need to do randomized controlled trials on forced HRT so se if that actually causes people born male to behave better.
Keeping young males sexually satisfied
It is especially important to satisfy young males of your society sexually since otherwise you can face a lot of societal destabilization. Males with bad genetics should still be kept sexually satisfied even if they are prevented from passing on their genes.
Males under a certain age (such as 18) can be allowed to freely grope at least females who are not already taken by male. This can be females who are into lesbian relationships or females who simply stay single.
We can also have sex-workers who will satisfy males by sucking dick and swallowing. Trans females are especially useful for that since they cannot get pregnant in the first place. If the female is actually fertile and can get impregnated vaginal sex will need to be avoided.
At least females who are not already taken by male will also be forced to wear revealing sexy clothing.
In order to be considered taken by a male you need to be the property of him (D-citizen) or be actively bred by him. Non-trans lesbians will need to date fertile trans lesbians to be considered taken.
It is especially important to satisfy young males of your society sexually since otherwise you can face a lot of societal destabilization. Males with bad genetics should still be kept sexually satisfied even if they are prevented from passing on their genes.
Males under a certain age (such as 18) can be allowed to freely grope at least females who are not already taken by male. This can be females who are into lesbian relationships or females who simply stay single.
We can also have sex-workers who will satisfy males by sucking dick and swallowing. Trans females are especially useful for that since they cannot get pregnant in the first place. If the female is actually fertile and can get impregnated vaginal sex will need to be avoided.
At least females who are not already taken by male will also be forced to wear revealing sexy clothing.
In order to be considered taken by a male you need to be the property of him (D-citizen) or be actively bred by him. Non-trans lesbians will need to date fertile trans lesbians to be considered taken.
Why a quick establishment of a world government is preferable
Having multiple competing societies will push governments to implement policies that harms humans and the planet in order to gain a competitive advantage over other societies.
Societies will be pushed to spend a lot of resources on ther militaries resulting in millions/billions of people living in poverty while trillions of $ are spent on military hardware and tends of millions of people work as soldiers, this is very much wasteful since people basically work against each other in a very wasteful armrace and very destructive wars.
A lot of people talk about how supposedely problematic CO2 emissions are while also failing to come up with policies that will effectively limit those emissions globally. Of course regardless of the impact on the environment those emissions will continue when there are multiple competing governments since renewable just aren't good enough.
Some governments might commit suicide by wrecking their economy while others just keep using fossil fuels to later conquer the societies that cared too much about the environment.
A perhaps bigger danger is artificial intelligence, the risk is machines emerging that end up killing all of humanity. Effectively mitigating that risk will likely require strict government control over technology (such as outright banning personal computers) and this will also set the society back a lot technologically, not something you can really do them in competition with other societies.
We can expect governments to be reckless developing ai killer weapons in an attempt to gain a military advantage. People getting killed from those robots going rouge is merely kolleteral damage.
By firmly having humans in charge we ensure the continued survival of humanity as a whole. Humans naturally care for humanity in a way other animals and robots simply do not.
https://www.youtube.com/@RobertMilesAI
Having multiple competing societies will push governments to implement policies that harms humans and the planet in order to gain a competitive advantage over other societies.
Societies will be pushed to spend a lot of resources on ther militaries resulting in millions/billions of people living in poverty while trillions of $ are spent on military hardware and tends of millions of people work as soldiers, this is very much wasteful since people basically work against each other in a very wasteful armrace and very destructive wars.
A lot of people talk about how supposedely problematic CO2 emissions are while also failing to come up with policies that will effectively limit those emissions globally. Of course regardless of the impact on the environment those emissions will continue when there are multiple competing governments since renewable just aren't good enough.
Some governments might commit suicide by wrecking their economy while others just keep using fossil fuels to later conquer the societies that cared too much about the environment.
A perhaps bigger danger is artificial intelligence, the risk is machines emerging that end up killing all of humanity. Effectively mitigating that risk will likely require strict government control over technology (such as outright banning personal computers) and this will also set the society back a lot technologically, not something you can really do them in competition with other societies.
We can expect governments to be reckless developing ai killer weapons in an attempt to gain a military advantage. People getting killed from those robots going rouge is merely kolleteral damage.
By firmly having humans in charge we ensure the continued survival of humanity as a whole. Humans naturally care for humanity in a way other animals and robots simply do not.
https://www.youtube.com/@RobertMilesAI
Eugenics and genetic engineering
Evolution by natural selection is a brutal and ineffective process. Therefore it can be tempting to take shortcuts when it comes to breeding a more fit population, this however will often end very badly, often worse than no selection at all 0
This however does not mean eugenics cannot work, it just means we need to be patient and give it the time it needs. Rather than trying to micro-manage breeding like we tried with dogs (and generally failed) we need to give evolution the time it needs to naturally adapt humans making the society stronger. Slow gradual evolution has worked in the past and it can work again.
Societies that neglect their gene-pool will gradually weaken to the point where they fall and be conquered by societies that have a working eugenics policy, you making humanitarian excuses will not prevent your society from falling or your population to go extinct.
The reason humanity as a whole needs eugenics is that we cannot survive on earth forever, eventually the sun will become so hot it will try earth and all life on earth will die, moving to mars (assuming that would even be sustainable at all) would just buy us time, we need to move to other star systems in order to continue our lineage and civilization.
There is of course a lot of different methods that can be used for eugenics, it does not have to be a policy that is officially justified with eugenics. One example of this is baby quotas supposedly implemented for raising the fertility rate but then it's individualized to specifically target privileged individuals (forcing them to have and raise more children). We can justify this by saying "privileged people need to do their fair share in increasing the fertility rate" and also "we shouldn't force poor people to have children" and also make exceptions for people with genetic disabilities.
If eugenics is generally viewed as something bad then governments will have to figure out ways to do eugenics without the masses realizing the real purpose is eugenics. A policy can officially have some other purpose such as "supporting parents" or "keep people safe from dangerous people".
It is worth noting that the massive growth in brain-size observed for humans prior to the agricultural revolution is very rare among animals. Intelligence is only being strongly selected for in special circumstances. Currently intelligence is not being selected for when it comes to humans due to less intelligence humans having more children on average 1 2 3 4
We do not actually need to use any genetic engineering for humans who are going to keep living on earth, humans are already decently adapted for earth so traditional breeding is enough. All we need to do is to select females most suited for reproducing and then forcing them to have over 10 children each on average.
Earth can be used to largely preserve humans in our current form with some minor improvements to eliminate diseases that are destrimental for quality of life and enhance the average intelligence.
Evolution by natural selection is a brutal and ineffective process. Therefore it can be tempting to take shortcuts when it comes to breeding a more fit population, this however will often end very badly, often worse than no selection at all 0
This however does not mean eugenics cannot work, it just means we need to be patient and give it the time it needs. Rather than trying to micro-manage breeding like we tried with dogs (and generally failed) we need to give evolution the time it needs to naturally adapt humans making the society stronger. Slow gradual evolution has worked in the past and it can work again.
Societies that neglect their gene-pool will gradually weaken to the point where they fall and be conquered by societies that have a working eugenics policy, you making humanitarian excuses will not prevent your society from falling or your population to go extinct.
The reason humanity as a whole needs eugenics is that we cannot survive on earth forever, eventually the sun will become so hot it will try earth and all life on earth will die, moving to mars (assuming that would even be sustainable at all) would just buy us time, we need to move to other star systems in order to continue our lineage and civilization.
There is of course a lot of different methods that can be used for eugenics, it does not have to be a policy that is officially justified with eugenics. One example of this is baby quotas supposedly implemented for raising the fertility rate but then it's individualized to specifically target privileged individuals (forcing them to have and raise more children). We can justify this by saying "privileged people need to do their fair share in increasing the fertility rate" and also "we shouldn't force poor people to have children" and also make exceptions for people with genetic disabilities.
If eugenics is generally viewed as something bad then governments will have to figure out ways to do eugenics without the masses realizing the real purpose is eugenics. A policy can officially have some other purpose such as "supporting parents" or "keep people safe from dangerous people".
It is worth noting that the massive growth in brain-size observed for humans prior to the agricultural revolution is very rare among animals. Intelligence is only being strongly selected for in special circumstances. Currently intelligence is not being selected for when it comes to humans due to less intelligence humans having more children on average 1 2 3 4
We do not actually need to use any genetic engineering for humans who are going to keep living on earth, humans are already decently adapted for earth so traditional breeding is enough. All we need to do is to select females most suited for reproducing and then forcing them to have over 10 children each on average.
Earth can be used to largely preserve humans in our current form with some minor improvements to eliminate diseases that are destrimental for quality of life and enhance the average intelligence.
Space colonization
We should engineer human-like animals to colonize other planets. This can be sending artificial wombs to nearby planets to start producing human-like animas there after we have sent seeds and other things there to start plant-life.
Most likely the life we establish on other planets (if we even succeed in that) will have a very hard time spreading further to other planets. Most likely the human-like life we manage to establish on other planets will fail to advance past primitive societies.
Humans will still likely be able to visit at least mars but that will be a bit meaningless since marse is a very ill-suited planet for life, it's very cold there and there is hardly any atmosphere.
Even fruitless space exploration projects can still be valuable for social control since it gives people something to work on together.
People can watch live and get excited when they see people on the space-station orbiting earth.
People can talk about their experience visiting mars.
People can work on designing better spaceship to be able to reach planets further from earth.
People can work on designing better humans to survive in harsh environments on other planets.
We should engineer human-like animals to colonize other planets. This can be sending artificial wombs to nearby planets to start producing human-like animas there after we have sent seeds and other things there to start plant-life.
Most likely the life we establish on other planets (if we even succeed in that) will have a very hard time spreading further to other planets. Most likely the human-like life we manage to establish on other planets will fail to advance past primitive societies.
Humans will still likely be able to visit at least mars but that will be a bit meaningless since marse is a very ill-suited planet for life, it's very cold there and there is hardly any atmosphere.
Even fruitless space exploration projects can still be valuable for social control since it gives people something to work on together.
People can watch live and get excited when they see people on the space-station orbiting earth.
People can talk about their experience visiting mars.
People can work on designing better spaceship to be able to reach planets further from earth.
People can work on designing better humans to survive in harsh environments on other planets.
About checks and balances to power
Many people mistakenly think that constitutional rights somehow ensured their rights but the reality is very different from that. Beautiful words on a piece of paper are just that, words on a paper, you holding up an old constitution will not stop the bullets coming your way, kevlar is better for that.
Some countries have powerful courts expected to uphold the constitution but there isn't actually any good reason for them to take that nonsense seriously, instead it's in their interest to ‘interpret’ the constitutions and laws in a way that just happens to align with their personal beliefs while they claim to be defenders of the constitution and people will support them for it.
Rather than limiting the power of government all you do by creating a strong court to empower that court to rule the country as they please while other branches of the government become weaker. All you can do is move the power around.
If the government isn't able to control media that control will instead land on private actors and these corporations will have their own special interests that does not align with the interests of the wider society.
Having different branches of government with different specializations will create multiple points of failure since then one branch stepping out of line could wreck the entire system if the branches have too much independence from each other.
Having uncertainty when it comes to who actually has the authority is also very bad when it comes to creating a functional government since then it's not clear who should make the decision. The president might make one decision viewing it as constitutional only to be blocked by courts 1 year later.
You want it to be clear to everyone who has the highest authority so everyone knows what they should actually follow and listen to.
Having different competing government factions can result in the total amount of control exercised exceeding the equilibrium resulting in a less effective and unstable society since every entity will naturally try to maximize their own power even if it comes at the expense of society at large.
The power of an entity can be limited by hard limit or by deterrence. For a hard limit to work when it comes to government decisions the time it takes for other individuals to intervene cannot be too long, only a few minutes in the case of nuclear war. You might have to be wakened up at night to make a difficult decision because the people awake didn't get to a majority.
Deterrents can often be evaded; there are many ways to cheat in elections, in wars you may be able to limit the damage that can be delivered in return if you decide to push the nuclear button, you can prevent citizens from effectively rebelling by gradually disarming them ‘to keep them safe’.
If someone does a crime it will often be too late once the police show up and many people are willing to break the law to achieve a political goal. Brenton Tarrant killed 51 muslims knowing he would go to jail for it, Breivik killed 77 individuals and didn't even expect to survive.
If it's hard to convict people (such as requiring the jury to be unanimous for conviction) then the police and others will get away with a lot of unlawful execution since it only takes one jury member to retroactively approve the killing.
Hard limits on the power of certain leaders only change the power distribution, it doesn't limit the total power of the government. Allowing supreme court justices to be replaced/added by congress means congress has more power while the supreme court ends up with less power, the total power of the entities remains the same.
Let's say you have 2 individuals, one president and one vice president, the president makes the correct decision 80% of the time while the vice president makes the correct decision 70% of the time, in that case it's questionable if allowing the vice president to over-rule the president would even be a good thing at all. The opposite is true if the probabilities are exchanged, in that case the more the vice president is able to overrule the president the better (with caveats).
It's more complicated when you have different groups, in that case if one group is unanimous in their decision while the other group made their decision with a margin of just one vote it's very likely that the unanimous group is in the right.
There is no need for complex system for overruling an entity. If you want less power concentration you can just increase the number of A-citizens. If the number of A-citizens is increased then each individual A-citizen can vote incorrectly more often without an incorrect decision being taken.
You want the most accurate decision-making body to have a very dominant role so society can take full advantage of its superior decision-making ability.
Having a weak and unstable government might be a good thing if a good government (such as yourself) will take charge instead but that will very often not be the case, often the next is even worse (such as Joe Biden).
Unfortunately the ones with the ultimate power will be time-limited and thus they will end up having to rely on other people making good decisions for them. Thus even if the highest court always makes the correct decision we might still end up with a lot of bad results due to the highest court not having time to review all decisions made by lower courts.
Separations of power allow for more specialization but it also adds more points of failure, this will only be stable if all branches of government are accountable to the same entity with ultimate power, this specialization can also be achieved by relying on parties outside the official government. Trying to add separations of powers at the highest level will eventually result in one of the branches going rouge.
Many people mistakenly think that constitutional rights somehow ensured their rights but the reality is very different from that. Beautiful words on a piece of paper are just that, words on a paper, you holding up an old constitution will not stop the bullets coming your way, kevlar is better for that.
Some countries have powerful courts expected to uphold the constitution but there isn't actually any good reason for them to take that nonsense seriously, instead it's in their interest to ‘interpret’ the constitutions and laws in a way that just happens to align with their personal beliefs while they claim to be defenders of the constitution and people will support them for it.
Rather than limiting the power of government all you do by creating a strong court to empower that court to rule the country as they please while other branches of the government become weaker. All you can do is move the power around.
If the government isn't able to control media that control will instead land on private actors and these corporations will have their own special interests that does not align with the interests of the wider society.
Having different branches of government with different specializations will create multiple points of failure since then one branch stepping out of line could wreck the entire system if the branches have too much independence from each other.
Having uncertainty when it comes to who actually has the authority is also very bad when it comes to creating a functional government since then it's not clear who should make the decision. The president might make one decision viewing it as constitutional only to be blocked by courts 1 year later.
You want it to be clear to everyone who has the highest authority so everyone knows what they should actually follow and listen to.
Having different competing government factions can result in the total amount of control exercised exceeding the equilibrium resulting in a less effective and unstable society since every entity will naturally try to maximize their own power even if it comes at the expense of society at large.
The power of an entity can be limited by hard limit or by deterrence. For a hard limit to work when it comes to government decisions the time it takes for other individuals to intervene cannot be too long, only a few minutes in the case of nuclear war. You might have to be wakened up at night to make a difficult decision because the people awake didn't get to a majority.
Deterrents can often be evaded; there are many ways to cheat in elections, in wars you may be able to limit the damage that can be delivered in return if you decide to push the nuclear button, you can prevent citizens from effectively rebelling by gradually disarming them ‘to keep them safe’.
If someone does a crime it will often be too late once the police show up and many people are willing to break the law to achieve a political goal. Brenton Tarrant killed 51 muslims knowing he would go to jail for it, Breivik killed 77 individuals and didn't even expect to survive.
If it's hard to convict people (such as requiring the jury to be unanimous for conviction) then the police and others will get away with a lot of unlawful execution since it only takes one jury member to retroactively approve the killing.
Hard limits on the power of certain leaders only change the power distribution, it doesn't limit the total power of the government. Allowing supreme court justices to be replaced/added by congress means congress has more power while the supreme court ends up with less power, the total power of the entities remains the same.
Let's say you have 2 individuals, one president and one vice president, the president makes the correct decision 80% of the time while the vice president makes the correct decision 70% of the time, in that case it's questionable if allowing the vice president to over-rule the president would even be a good thing at all. The opposite is true if the probabilities are exchanged, in that case the more the vice president is able to overrule the president the better (with caveats).
It's more complicated when you have different groups, in that case if one group is unanimous in their decision while the other group made their decision with a margin of just one vote it's very likely that the unanimous group is in the right.
There is no need for complex system for overruling an entity. If you want less power concentration you can just increase the number of A-citizens. If the number of A-citizens is increased then each individual A-citizen can vote incorrectly more often without an incorrect decision being taken.
You want the most accurate decision-making body to have a very dominant role so society can take full advantage of its superior decision-making ability.
Having a weak and unstable government might be a good thing if a good government (such as yourself) will take charge instead but that will very often not be the case, often the next is even worse (such as Joe Biden).
Unfortunately the ones with the ultimate power will be time-limited and thus they will end up having to rely on other people making good decisions for them. Thus even if the highest court always makes the correct decision we might still end up with a lot of bad results due to the highest court not having time to review all decisions made by lower courts.
Separations of power allow for more specialization but it also adds more points of failure, this will only be stable if all branches of government are accountable to the same entity with ultimate power, this specialization can also be achieved by relying on parties outside the official government. Trying to add separations of powers at the highest level will eventually result in one of the branches going rouge.
Great sex via brutal domination
Having to get things like consent (especially if it applies to individual stuff you want to do) will greatly limit the type of sexual experiences you can enjoy.
By owning someone as property you can use them as you please and they will be subjected to your every desire. All they can do is moan and obey as you humiliate them over and over again. The unpredictability and lack of control would also make this into an exciting experience to go through for females subjected to it. Begging for mercy in fear of brutal punishment and not knowing if you will be able to please your master, not knowing how you are going to be dominated the next time.
This goes beyond merely sex itself. It’s also about breeding females to be better for sex, make sure they all have nice breasts and are sensitive. Have them wear nice clothing for others to enjoy, etc.
Having to get things like consent (especially if it applies to individual stuff you want to do) will greatly limit the type of sexual experiences you can enjoy.
By owning someone as property you can use them as you please and they will be subjected to your every desire. All they can do is moan and obey as you humiliate them over and over again. The unpredictability and lack of control would also make this into an exciting experience to go through for females subjected to it. Begging for mercy in fear of brutal punishment and not knowing if you will be able to please your master, not knowing how you are going to be dominated the next time.
This goes beyond merely sex itself. It’s also about breeding females to be better for sex, make sure they all have nice breasts and are sensitive. Have them wear nice clothing for others to enjoy, etc.
Breeding schools
You can simply let every male student of a highschool have sex with any females including trying to make her pregnant. Females will be around males who can grope them, etc at any time.
More males will try to impregnate the more attractive females which will incentivize males to instead go for less attractive ones since they instead generally offer higher chance of pregnancy, there would be a natural nash equilibrium in terms of how sexually active each female is forced to be.
The government would still regulate which males are allowed to attend each school in the first place.
Males ill-suited for reproduction could be forcefully transition (outright force or as a requirement for entry) and then get the same rights as the other females (being fucked by anyone who wants that).
The males at the breeding schools would be of similar age as the females allowing young males to have a lot of fun with different females. A lot of teen girls would probably end up enjoying it too, sounds fun to me.
The parents of the children would be allowed to (but not required) to take part in raising the children, they would decide how much time to spend with them and what help they need from the school/government for it.
Everyone would be checked for STDs when entering the school assuming there are ones remaining not yet eradicated from the entire planet.
You can simply let every male student of a highschool have sex with any females including trying to make her pregnant. Females will be around males who can grope them, etc at any time.
More males will try to impregnate the more attractive females which will incentivize males to instead go for less attractive ones since they instead generally offer higher chance of pregnancy, there would be a natural nash equilibrium in terms of how sexually active each female is forced to be.
The government would still regulate which males are allowed to attend each school in the first place.
Males ill-suited for reproduction could be forcefully transition (outright force or as a requirement for entry) and then get the same rights as the other females (being fucked by anyone who wants that).
The males at the breeding schools would be of similar age as the females allowing young males to have a lot of fun with different females. A lot of teen girls would probably end up enjoying it too, sounds fun to me.
The parents of the children would be allowed to (but not required) to take part in raising the children, they would decide how much time to spend with them and what help they need from the school/government for it.
Everyone would be checked for STDs when entering the school assuming there are ones remaining not yet eradicated from the entire planet.
Disease eradication
One current liberal dogma is that diseases is simply something we will have to put up with, something that people will keep getting infected with and suffer from.
But what if we simply could get rid of a disease completely? This isn’t merely some fantasy, it has in fact already happened with smallpox and it’s something we can achieve with other diseases via global authoritarian governance.
People should be able to enjoy great sex with strangers without having to worry about getting any sickness from it.
China was able to keep earlier versions of sars-cov-2 at bay thanks to brutal control measures.
One current liberal dogma is that diseases is simply something we will have to put up with, something that people will keep getting infected with and suffer from.
But what if we simply could get rid of a disease completely? This isn’t merely some fantasy, it has in fact already happened with smallpox and it’s something we can achieve with other diseases via global authoritarian governance.
People should be able to enjoy great sex with strangers without having to worry about getting any sickness from it.
China was able to keep earlier versions of sars-cov-2 at bay thanks to brutal control measures.
Pure elite rule
Having a stable government that makes the correct decisions in a timely manner is very important for continued expansion. Just one bad government can be enough to destroy the future of your society sending your country into disarray.
Since governments are in constant competition against each other for power slow/dysfunctional systems of government will all be crushed and be replaced by more efficient systems of government. Thus over time smaller and smaller portions of the world population will be governed by a system other than pure elite rule and eventually a single government will govern the entire planet.
There isn't actually any good reason to think the right people would actually be likely to grab power to establish pure elite rule, instead in most cases the people grabbing power would not be very suited for it but then over time these people would see themselves out-competed and crushed to the point where only competent governments remain.
Because societies are in a constant competition between each other until they have crushed all competition the ruling elite would be very limited in their ability to actually implement their vision for society since unless they actually win the war their impact would be very limited.
It's in the interest of society that a good government remains firmly in power since otherwise you will risk losing power to some other actors and that comes with a significant risk. It's better to let the ones who are already governing well figure out the succession themselves. If the leaders are highly competent they should be able to also select good successors to themselves (such as everyone selecting their most competent son out of 50 to 200).
Once you have finally established yourself as the unquestionable world authority you would finally be able to stark shaping the world to your liking securing not only a good life for yourself now but also good lives for your children and if you reincarnate as a human you would experience the fruits of your labor first hand, you are thus incentivized to shape society in a such away that on average your life after reincarnating would be great, you can still have some people who are brutally abused if that creates more value for others than how much they suffer from said abuse.
An elite taking control over a country will be able to enjoy abusing their powers in many ways. If the elite takes power ruthlessly they are also likely to rule ruthlessly. The ruling elite will divide the world population into the following classes:
A The ruling elite (5 to 999 senators).
B Selected by the ruling elite.
C Ordinary citizens or tourists/guest-workers.
D Human property of a citizen or group of citizens.
E Less/no rights, not property of a citizen or group of citizens.
F Military targets.
All senators must be reachable at all hours of the day, if a majority of all senators cannot instantly agree to a decision senators asleep may have to be woken up. The full senate will have the highest judicial, legislative and executive power.
Each senator will select up to 20 successors/advisors, if the successor already sits in the senate when being allowed to take over he has to give one of the seats away to someone else.
The senators can vote to make any decision including change to how the country is governed via simple majority, thus the senate can quickly change the government structure as needed.
In addition to voting “Yes” and “No” senators also have the option to cast an “Abstain” vote. 2 senators voting “Abstain” will reduce the number of votes requires for a conclusive outcome by one. If a vote ends in a draw (such as 4 yes, 4 no, 1 Abstain, 0 didn't vote) the A0 senator will have their vote decide the outcome if he/she voted, if he/she voted “Abstain” the A1 senator will instead have its vote decide the outcome, and so on.
The strength of laws will depend on how many senators who support these laws. If only 10 of 15 currently approve of a new legislation you would need 8 of 10 to think that the one charge is guilty if all the 5 who disagree with the law are against convicting the individual (which might not actually happen). This will also apply to lower courts if each senator appoints a representative to said court.
A senator has the option to vote with a set execution time, one a majority has voted Yes or No with that execution time or less the time will start ticking down. By having some execution time a mistake can be reversed before it's too late.
Since the senate is the highest power you as a senator going against the majority will not actually do much good unless it's a decision that at some time can be reversed, at least in part. For that reason when senators are voting it might not make sense to continue having the vote once a majority decision has been reached (such as 3 yes including senator A0, 3 Abstain, 1 no, 2 not voted yet).
A senator will work 13 to 17 hours per day, each senator will have a personal staff (B citizens) that helps them with research and to avoid harmful group-think among senators.
It's very important that the ruling elite is actually able to implement the policies they think are right instead of having to constantly compromise to remain in power. For that reason you want the senators to establish themselves as something like goods such that very few people actually question their decisions. The senate shall control media and education in addition directly to ensure social harmony.
We can expect the ruling elite to prioritize the well-being of their own over the well-being of other citizens and this is not a bad thing. The elite are the for society most important individuals so of course we want them to make sure they are doing well. The elite will of course also have a great incentive to look out for the country as a whole since they depend on said country for their well-being and power.
It's very important that the senators put a lot of effort into creating successors that are even better at governing than they are since otherwise you might find your society out-competed by another society that managed to appoint a more competent ruling body.
One very simple method of creating suitable successors is for the senators to simply have a lot of children and then select the most suitable child from each senator, the more children they have the better the successors will be if the senators do a better than random job at appointing the most suitable children of them as their successors.
The senators can further increase the chance of having good offspring by selectively breeding with the partners where they are more likely to create suitable offspring. They can also use technology such as genetic engineering to make sure the ones eventually replacing them are more capable than the competition in other countries or competition that managed to remain in hiding within your country.
The male senators are supposed to have sex daily to impregnate a lot of females, this will result in each senator having many children to choose from when it comes to appointing a successor. A senator may also select a successor who isn't a biological child of his/her. Female senators will get impregnated on a regular basis and keep working while pregnant or donate eggs.
x = probability of a senator making a decision
y = probability of the senator making said decision
As we see from the pictures above increasing the size of the ruling elite can increase the accuracy in which the ruling elite makes decisions. That however assumes a constant error probability for all senators which will not be the case in reality.
If the number of senators is 15 we get
A0: senator of rank 0
A1: senator of rank 1
A2: senator of rank 2
A3: senator of rank 3
A4: senator of rank 4
A5: senator of rank 5
A6: senator of rank 6
A7: senator of rank 7
A8: senator of rank 8
A9: senator of rank 9
A10: senator of rank 10
A11: senator of rank 11
A12: senator of rank 12
A13: senator of rank 13
A14: senator of rank 14
B0: first successor to the senator of rank 0
B1: first successor to the senator of rank 1
B2: first successor to the senator of rank 2
⁝
B14: first successor the senator of rank 14
B15: second successor the senator of rank 0
⁝
B100: successor 7 to the senator of rank 10
⁝
B299: successor 20 to the senator of rank 14
C0: Approved by the senate for the highest level of service, eligible for B-citizenship.
C1: Approved for high positions such as a lower judge.
C2: Approved for heavy weapons.
C3: citizens allowed to carry light weapons.
C4: full citizenship.
C5: permanent residence.
C6: temporary residence (can be extended by paying fee).
D0: very high-value child/teen under guardianship/custody of C0/higher. Will by default be given C2 citizenship at 16
D1: high-value child/teen under guardianship/custody of C1/higher. Will by default be given C3 citizenship at 16.
D2: high-value individual reduced to property of C0 or higher for an indefinite period of time.
D3: valuable individual reduced to property of C1 or higher for an indefinite period of time.
D4: individual (such as a child) where C4 or higher have custody. Will instead be given C4 citizenship at 16.
D5: slave/child you are not allowed to injure (minor punishments allowed).
D6: slave not allowed to be killed or seriously injure (loss of limb, brain-damage, sterilized, etc).
D7: slave you are not allowed to kill or give serious brain-damage.
D8: slave with no rights.
E0: very limited legal protections. Not the property of a citizen or group of citizens.
E1: no legal protections. Not property of a citizen or group of citizens.
Fn: military targets of value {F0 value}*10n/10
If the senate consists of the true elite the senate will make the right decision more often than any individual human. Elite rule also has the massive advantage of allowing decisions from the highest authority to be made at any time without delay.
All senators will carry a secure phone with them when they are not working, the secure phones will allow them to quickly make a decision in the case of an emergency such as a nuclear war scenario. The first successors can be allowed to vote in the place of senators with a minimum execution delay of 3 minutes (enough for the senator to be woken up & vote) to 12 hours.
By default biological children of C0/higher will get D0 'citizenship' but teens/children under 16 who are not children of C0/higher can still be given D0 citizenship via court approval by request of C0/higher.
D0 and D1 individuals who cannot meet the standard at 16 will have their citizenship downgraded. The D0 and D1 'citizenships' are exclusive to people younger than 16. A lot of resources will be invested into training D0 and D1 teens/children while they are young and can learn easily.
By default biological children of C1/higher will get D1 'citizenship' but teens/children under 16 who are not children of C1/higher can still be given D1 citizenship via court approval by request of C1/higher.
People with D2 or D3 citizenship can be freed by the people who own them as custody at any time to be given C4 citizenship. Freeing them to get higher than C4 does however require court or senate approval.
People can be under the custody of more than one individual, for D0 'citizens' all individuals who share custody needs to be C0 or higher.
While the full senate will always maintain the highest executive authority there will also be a need to grant some executive powers elsewhere. It's however very important that these lower powers are constrained to limit the damage that can be done by a single actor or a lower court.
A police officer might for example end up having to kill some people in the moment but then someone will get killed without even facing trial. It's especially important to have scrutiny in advance since punishing a police officer for killing someone isn't going to bring them back.
In some matters a single senator can take official government action but then said decision can also very quickly be reversed. This works by having all votes in these matters count as "Abstain" by default.
A decision by A1 can for example be temporarily reversed by A0 or any two A-citizens.
These senate actions need to be formally granted and clearly defined, all other senate actions require full votes. It's for example a good idea to at least allow a single A-citizen to temporarily hide a major social media channel. You can also grant authority to B-citizens to in some circumstances vote on behalf of their senate seat if no higher vote has been cast by any higher successor or their senator.
Senators can freely select who to breed with, a female citizen selected for that do have the option to just offer her eggs if she has already given birth enough or is already being bred. Similar rights can be granted to lower ranked male citizens as needed (such as C0 and higher).
A female citizen can never be forced into surrogacy. A male citizen does not have the right to deny sex with a female senator.
As you try to increase the size of the ruling elite you will eventually have to lower the standard to add more people as A-citizens since it will become harder and harder to find existing people who are suited for the job. There is also not any reliable way to figure out who is actually suited for becoming an A-citizen and once someone is added getting a majority in the senate for their removal will be difficult.
Another issue with increasing the size of the ruling elite is that it will reduce the probability of a vote cast being a deciding vote that will change the outcome, this will decentivize senators from putting effort into the votes they cast.
Another issue with having too many senators is that in order for the senators to be able to properly make decisions they will have to be provided with classified information, adding more senators will increase the risk for leakage of classified info (doesn't have to be intentional). The more freedom and privacy that are given to an individual senator the greater the risk is that he/she is going to leak classified information without someone finding out, of course even if he/she is found out the damage will have already have been done. Not giving senators freedom & privacy however will make it more difficult to recruit suitable people to the senate, especially if each senator only has very limited power.
Holding senate votes where the outcome is obvious is nearly pointless, this issue can be resolved by having a lower board or a sub-group among the senators make the initial decision, full senate votes/trials will mostly/only be held when the initial vote got close. This is especially a problem when the number of senators is large (such as 315) making it very unlikely an individual vote will change the outcome.
If the senate is divided into smaller formal courts (such as 7 courts with 9 senators each) any such smaller senate courts would be allowed to weigh in on any case and then a full senate vote/trial will be held unless every courts that hold a trial arrived at the same conclusion or there vote is already conclusive from the senate-courts who have already voted.
B-citizens can be used to fill out courts and other high government bodies such that each senator has a representative for said body. This will be especially useful when there are not enough senators to split the senate into multiple smaller courts (such as 11 courts with 9 seats each).
The lowest full courts consist of at 5 to 15 people with at least C1 citizenship.
You need C1 or higher to be able to appeal a court decision. Each individual judge will be able to appeal but a single C0 citizen (or higher) or 3 C1 citizens will also have the authority to appeal decisions made by the lowest full courts.
When a court-decision is appealed the senate will first be notified. The senate then have the following options
0. Hold a full senate trial.
1. Hold a quick senate trial.
2. Vote right away.
3. Force a new trial as determined by the senate (such as B0 to B14 as judges).
4. Do nothing which allows any approved appeals court can decide to look into the case if they want to and have free time for it.
The court can change your citizenship if you are a C2 citizen or lower but cannot promote the citizenship to anything higher than C2.
Getting C1 citizenship required formal vote by the senate (such as the senate approving a list of candidates) or via the senate granting the authority to some single individual or body to grant a limited number of C1 citizenships.
Once you have received your C1 citizenship you can be approved as C0 citizen via a full senate vote. All new C0 citizens needs to be formally approved by the senate with only one person being approved for each senate vote.
Your citizen-class will determine which weapons you are allowed to possess and carry, non-citizens are not allowed to carry any weapons, C2 and higher will be allowed to carry very heavy weapons, since they have already been approved by the court there will be no need for further background checks.
Each senator will be provided a large amount of money on a daily basis that he/she will be allowed to freely spend. A senator can also automatically redirect portions of these payments to other things such as salaries for personal advisors/children/wives. This can be very useful as emergency spending and senators can get fully or partly reimbursed later.
A senator might end up with too much money/resources and then the government might have to take over some of that (such as some business the senator no longer have time to manage) or it can be given away to children of the senator, etc.
Technically anyone will be able to use their salary to quickly provide needed finances during emergency but for people with poor finances that would be very risky since they would not be guaranteed to get fully compensated by the government.
It's very important that the ruling elite and their supporters are in control over the military and powerful weapons in general in the case there is an attempted uprising. You also want problematic individuals to be armed as little as possible so they will be unable to fight back if you target them. Thus you will be able to keep your power or regain control even if most of the public starts opposing you.
Having a stable government that makes the correct decisions in a timely manner is very important for continued expansion. Just one bad government can be enough to destroy the future of your society sending your country into disarray.
Since governments are in constant competition against each other for power slow/dysfunctional systems of government will all be crushed and be replaced by more efficient systems of government. Thus over time smaller and smaller portions of the world population will be governed by a system other than pure elite rule and eventually a single government will govern the entire planet.
There isn't actually any good reason to think the right people would actually be likely to grab power to establish pure elite rule, instead in most cases the people grabbing power would not be very suited for it but then over time these people would see themselves out-competed and crushed to the point where only competent governments remain.
Because societies are in a constant competition between each other until they have crushed all competition the ruling elite would be very limited in their ability to actually implement their vision for society since unless they actually win the war their impact would be very limited.
It's in the interest of society that a good government remains firmly in power since otherwise you will risk losing power to some other actors and that comes with a significant risk. It's better to let the ones who are already governing well figure out the succession themselves. If the leaders are highly competent they should be able to also select good successors to themselves (such as everyone selecting their most competent son out of 50 to 200).
Once you have finally established yourself as the unquestionable world authority you would finally be able to stark shaping the world to your liking securing not only a good life for yourself now but also good lives for your children and if you reincarnate as a human you would experience the fruits of your labor first hand, you are thus incentivized to shape society in a such away that on average your life after reincarnating would be great, you can still have some people who are brutally abused if that creates more value for others than how much they suffer from said abuse.
An elite taking control over a country will be able to enjoy abusing their powers in many ways. If the elite takes power ruthlessly they are also likely to rule ruthlessly. The ruling elite will divide the world population into the following classes:
A The ruling elite (5 to 999 senators).
B Selected by the ruling elite.
C Ordinary citizens or tourists/guest-workers.
D Human property of a citizen or group of citizens.
E Less/no rights, not property of a citizen or group of citizens.
F Military targets.
All senators must be reachable at all hours of the day, if a majority of all senators cannot instantly agree to a decision senators asleep may have to be woken up. The full senate will have the highest judicial, legislative and executive power.
Each senator will select up to 20 successors/advisors, if the successor already sits in the senate when being allowed to take over he has to give one of the seats away to someone else.
The senators can vote to make any decision including change to how the country is governed via simple majority, thus the senate can quickly change the government structure as needed.
In addition to voting “Yes” and “No” senators also have the option to cast an “Abstain” vote. 2 senators voting “Abstain” will reduce the number of votes requires for a conclusive outcome by one. If a vote ends in a draw (such as 4 yes, 4 no, 1 Abstain, 0 didn't vote) the A0 senator will have their vote decide the outcome if he/she voted, if he/she voted “Abstain” the A1 senator will instead have its vote decide the outcome, and so on.
The strength of laws will depend on how many senators who support these laws. If only 10 of 15 currently approve of a new legislation you would need 8 of 10 to think that the one charge is guilty if all the 5 who disagree with the law are against convicting the individual (which might not actually happen). This will also apply to lower courts if each senator appoints a representative to said court.
A senator has the option to vote with a set execution time, one a majority has voted Yes or No with that execution time or less the time will start ticking down. By having some execution time a mistake can be reversed before it's too late.
Since the senate is the highest power you as a senator going against the majority will not actually do much good unless it's a decision that at some time can be reversed, at least in part. For that reason when senators are voting it might not make sense to continue having the vote once a majority decision has been reached (such as 3 yes including senator A0, 3 Abstain, 1 no, 2 not voted yet).
A senator will work 13 to 17 hours per day, each senator will have a personal staff (B citizens) that helps them with research and to avoid harmful group-think among senators.
It's very important that the ruling elite is actually able to implement the policies they think are right instead of having to constantly compromise to remain in power. For that reason you want the senators to establish themselves as something like goods such that very few people actually question their decisions. The senate shall control media and education in addition directly to ensure social harmony.
We can expect the ruling elite to prioritize the well-being of their own over the well-being of other citizens and this is not a bad thing. The elite are the for society most important individuals so of course we want them to make sure they are doing well. The elite will of course also have a great incentive to look out for the country as a whole since they depend on said country for their well-being and power.
It's very important that the senators put a lot of effort into creating successors that are even better at governing than they are since otherwise you might find your society out-competed by another society that managed to appoint a more competent ruling body.
One very simple method of creating suitable successors is for the senators to simply have a lot of children and then select the most suitable child from each senator, the more children they have the better the successors will be if the senators do a better than random job at appointing the most suitable children of them as their successors.
The senators can further increase the chance of having good offspring by selectively breeding with the partners where they are more likely to create suitable offspring. They can also use technology such as genetic engineering to make sure the ones eventually replacing them are more capable than the competition in other countries or competition that managed to remain in hiding within your country.
The male senators are supposed to have sex daily to impregnate a lot of females, this will result in each senator having many children to choose from when it comes to appointing a successor. A senator may also select a successor who isn't a biological child of his/her. Female senators will get impregnated on a regular basis and keep working while pregnant or donate eggs.
x = probability of a senator making a decision
y = probability of the senator making said decision
As we see from the pictures above increasing the size of the ruling elite can increase the accuracy in which the ruling elite makes decisions. That however assumes a constant error probability for all senators which will not be the case in reality.
If the number of senators is 15 we get
A0: senator of rank 0
A1: senator of rank 1
A2: senator of rank 2
A3: senator of rank 3
A4: senator of rank 4
A5: senator of rank 5
A6: senator of rank 6
A7: senator of rank 7
A8: senator of rank 8
A9: senator of rank 9
A10: senator of rank 10
A11: senator of rank 11
A12: senator of rank 12
A13: senator of rank 13
A14: senator of rank 14
B0: first successor to the senator of rank 0
B1: first successor to the senator of rank 1
B2: first successor to the senator of rank 2
⁝
B14: first successor the senator of rank 14
B15: second successor the senator of rank 0
⁝
B100: successor 7 to the senator of rank 10
⁝
B299: successor 20 to the senator of rank 14
C0: Approved by the senate for the highest level of service, eligible for B-citizenship.
C1: Approved for high positions such as a lower judge.
C2: Approved for heavy weapons.
C3: citizens allowed to carry light weapons.
C4: full citizenship.
C5: permanent residence.
C6: temporary residence (can be extended by paying fee).
D0: very high-value child/teen under guardianship/custody of C0/higher. Will by default be given C2 citizenship at 16
D1: high-value child/teen under guardianship/custody of C1/higher. Will by default be given C3 citizenship at 16.
D2: high-value individual reduced to property of C0 or higher for an indefinite period of time.
D3: valuable individual reduced to property of C1 or higher for an indefinite period of time.
D4: individual (such as a child) where C4 or higher have custody. Will instead be given C4 citizenship at 16.
D5: slave/child you are not allowed to injure (minor punishments allowed).
D6: slave not allowed to be killed or seriously injure (loss of limb, brain-damage, sterilized, etc).
D7: slave you are not allowed to kill or give serious brain-damage.
D8: slave with no rights.
E0: very limited legal protections. Not the property of a citizen or group of citizens.
E1: no legal protections. Not property of a citizen or group of citizens.
Fn: military targets of value {F0 value}*10n/10
If the senate consists of the true elite the senate will make the right decision more often than any individual human. Elite rule also has the massive advantage of allowing decisions from the highest authority to be made at any time without delay.
All senators will carry a secure phone with them when they are not working, the secure phones will allow them to quickly make a decision in the case of an emergency such as a nuclear war scenario. The first successors can be allowed to vote in the place of senators with a minimum execution delay of 3 minutes (enough for the senator to be woken up & vote) to 12 hours.
By default biological children of C0/higher will get D0 'citizenship' but teens/children under 16 who are not children of C0/higher can still be given D0 citizenship via court approval by request of C0/higher.
D0 and D1 individuals who cannot meet the standard at 16 will have their citizenship downgraded. The D0 and D1 'citizenships' are exclusive to people younger than 16. A lot of resources will be invested into training D0 and D1 teens/children while they are young and can learn easily.
By default biological children of C1/higher will get D1 'citizenship' but teens/children under 16 who are not children of C1/higher can still be given D1 citizenship via court approval by request of C1/higher.
People with D2 or D3 citizenship can be freed by the people who own them as custody at any time to be given C4 citizenship. Freeing them to get higher than C4 does however require court or senate approval.
People can be under the custody of more than one individual, for D0 'citizens' all individuals who share custody needs to be C0 or higher.
While the full senate will always maintain the highest executive authority there will also be a need to grant some executive powers elsewhere. It's however very important that these lower powers are constrained to limit the damage that can be done by a single actor or a lower court.
A police officer might for example end up having to kill some people in the moment but then someone will get killed without even facing trial. It's especially important to have scrutiny in advance since punishing a police officer for killing someone isn't going to bring them back.
In some matters a single senator can take official government action but then said decision can also very quickly be reversed. This works by having all votes in these matters count as "Abstain" by default.
A decision by A1 can for example be temporarily reversed by A0 or any two A-citizens.
These senate actions need to be formally granted and clearly defined, all other senate actions require full votes. It's for example a good idea to at least allow a single A-citizen to temporarily hide a major social media channel. You can also grant authority to B-citizens to in some circumstances vote on behalf of their senate seat if no higher vote has been cast by any higher successor or their senator.
Senators can freely select who to breed with, a female citizen selected for that do have the option to just offer her eggs if she has already given birth enough or is already being bred. Similar rights can be granted to lower ranked male citizens as needed (such as C0 and higher).
A female citizen can never be forced into surrogacy. A male citizen does not have the right to deny sex with a female senator.
As you try to increase the size of the ruling elite you will eventually have to lower the standard to add more people as A-citizens since it will become harder and harder to find existing people who are suited for the job. There is also not any reliable way to figure out who is actually suited for becoming an A-citizen and once someone is added getting a majority in the senate for their removal will be difficult.
Another issue with increasing the size of the ruling elite is that it will reduce the probability of a vote cast being a deciding vote that will change the outcome, this will decentivize senators from putting effort into the votes they cast.
Another issue with having too many senators is that in order for the senators to be able to properly make decisions they will have to be provided with classified information, adding more senators will increase the risk for leakage of classified info (doesn't have to be intentional). The more freedom and privacy that are given to an individual senator the greater the risk is that he/she is going to leak classified information without someone finding out, of course even if he/she is found out the damage will have already have been done. Not giving senators freedom & privacy however will make it more difficult to recruit suitable people to the senate, especially if each senator only has very limited power.
Holding senate votes where the outcome is obvious is nearly pointless, this issue can be resolved by having a lower board or a sub-group among the senators make the initial decision, full senate votes/trials will mostly/only be held when the initial vote got close. This is especially a problem when the number of senators is large (such as 315) making it very unlikely an individual vote will change the outcome.
If the senate is divided into smaller formal courts (such as 7 courts with 9 senators each) any such smaller senate courts would be allowed to weigh in on any case and then a full senate vote/trial will be held unless every courts that hold a trial arrived at the same conclusion or there vote is already conclusive from the senate-courts who have already voted.
B-citizens can be used to fill out courts and other high government bodies such that each senator has a representative for said body. This will be especially useful when there are not enough senators to split the senate into multiple smaller courts (such as 11 courts with 9 seats each).
The lowest full courts consist of at 5 to 15 people with at least C1 citizenship.
You need C1 or higher to be able to appeal a court decision. Each individual judge will be able to appeal but a single C0 citizen (or higher) or 3 C1 citizens will also have the authority to appeal decisions made by the lowest full courts.
When a court-decision is appealed the senate will first be notified. The senate then have the following options
0. Hold a full senate trial.
1. Hold a quick senate trial.
2. Vote right away.
3. Force a new trial as determined by the senate (such as B0 to B14 as judges).
4. Do nothing which allows any approved appeals court can decide to look into the case if they want to and have free time for it.
The court can change your citizenship if you are a C2 citizen or lower but cannot promote the citizenship to anything higher than C2.
Getting C1 citizenship required formal vote by the senate (such as the senate approving a list of candidates) or via the senate granting the authority to some single individual or body to grant a limited number of C1 citizenships.
Once you have received your C1 citizenship you can be approved as C0 citizen via a full senate vote. All new C0 citizens needs to be formally approved by the senate with only one person being approved for each senate vote.
Your citizen-class will determine which weapons you are allowed to possess and carry, non-citizens are not allowed to carry any weapons, C2 and higher will be allowed to carry very heavy weapons, since they have already been approved by the court there will be no need for further background checks.
Each senator will be provided a large amount of money on a daily basis that he/she will be allowed to freely spend. A senator can also automatically redirect portions of these payments to other things such as salaries for personal advisors/children/wives. This can be very useful as emergency spending and senators can get fully or partly reimbursed later.
A senator might end up with too much money/resources and then the government might have to take over some of that (such as some business the senator no longer have time to manage) or it can be given away to children of the senator, etc.
Technically anyone will be able to use their salary to quickly provide needed finances during emergency but for people with poor finances that would be very risky since they would not be guaranteed to get fully compensated by the government.
It's very important that the ruling elite and their supporters are in control over the military and powerful weapons in general in the case there is an attempted uprising. You also want problematic individuals to be armed as little as possible so they will be unable to fight back if you target them. Thus you will be able to keep your power or regain control even if most of the public starts opposing you.
Televised elimination games and senator selection
Regular televised elimination games will be held for selecting a new member to an important position. Having a public selection process will be valuable in suring up support for the system, people will see with their own eyes how difficult it is to become a senator.
The contenders will be subjected to various hard tests to demonstrate they are capable enough for the position in question. The tests will be similar to the astronaut selection process.
The senate would of course still always have the highest authority and they would decide the rules for the selection process and what seats that would be available during it.
If a senator retires they might decide to instead of just leaving their post they will hold a public selection process for their seat where some of their successors (such as the first 4) compete publicly. The senate can and of course at any time vote to change who is the first successor to the senator who is going to retire. The first successor should be the most likely candidate to win and so on.
Selecting a less qualified female over a male might be worth it for the sake of diversity and thus getting more public support, if this is done its important that you do not tell people she is selected due to being female, instead you tell people she got selected by merit even though there were more qualified males for the position.
A purely meritocratic system will have some diversity but it will be very heavily dominated by males, a less meritocratic system such as having each senator freely select their favorite as successor will increase diversity at the expense of quality of the governance. Note that "purely meritocratic" is merely performance based on some objective test (such as beating your opponent in a board game) but people have different opinions regarding which of these tests are the best, in reality of course there is no particularly great objective test available in the first place. We need to look at more subjective criteria.
It is worth noting that all the candidates in the public selection process will already have passed a lot of more subjective screening with each new stage being significantly harder than the last.
Computer games could be used to test the candidates but that would obviously not be the typical games. Instead the games would be hardcore simulators such as a military first person shooter.
The big issue with using games as a benchmark is that it would favor the candidate with the most experience with said title and similar titles. Creating a completely new game does not eliminate that problem since having played a similar game a lot would still provide a significant unfair advantage.
What we actually want is to test the ability of the candidate to perform in the real world such as the ability to quickly guess whether or not a real subject is guilty. You can bring a random crime suspect to the candidates and have them guess the outcome of the full trial based on very limited information.
The candidates would be held in isolation prior to the the tests to ensure there is no possibility of anyone helping them out with tips.
Regular televised elimination games will be held for selecting a new member to an important position. Having a public selection process will be valuable in suring up support for the system, people will see with their own eyes how difficult it is to become a senator.
The contenders will be subjected to various hard tests to demonstrate they are capable enough for the position in question. The tests will be similar to the astronaut selection process.
The senate would of course still always have the highest authority and they would decide the rules for the selection process and what seats that would be available during it.
If a senator retires they might decide to instead of just leaving their post they will hold a public selection process for their seat where some of their successors (such as the first 4) compete publicly. The senate can and of course at any time vote to change who is the first successor to the senator who is going to retire. The first successor should be the most likely candidate to win and so on.
Selecting a less qualified female over a male might be worth it for the sake of diversity and thus getting more public support, if this is done its important that you do not tell people she is selected due to being female, instead you tell people she got selected by merit even though there were more qualified males for the position.
A purely meritocratic system will have some diversity but it will be very heavily dominated by males, a less meritocratic system such as having each senator freely select their favorite as successor will increase diversity at the expense of quality of the governance. Note that "purely meritocratic" is merely performance based on some objective test (such as beating your opponent in a board game) but people have different opinions regarding which of these tests are the best, in reality of course there is no particularly great objective test available in the first place. We need to look at more subjective criteria.
It is worth noting that all the candidates in the public selection process will already have passed a lot of more subjective screening with each new stage being significantly harder than the last.
Computer games could be used to test the candidates but that would obviously not be the typical games. Instead the games would be hardcore simulators such as a military first person shooter.
The big issue with using games as a benchmark is that it would favor the candidate with the most experience with said title and similar titles. Creating a completely new game does not eliminate that problem since having played a similar game a lot would still provide a significant unfair advantage.
What we actually want is to test the ability of the candidate to perform in the real world such as the ability to quickly guess whether or not a real subject is guilty. You can bring a random crime suspect to the candidates and have them guess the outcome of the full trial based on very limited information.
The candidates would be held in isolation prior to the the tests to ensure there is no possibility of anyone helping them out with tips.
Referendums
Even with significant control over global and local media the ability for the ruling elite to shape the opinions of the populace will be limited, therefore the ruling elite will have to shape policies based on referendums and the opinions of randomly selected citizens.
Ideally referendums should be of the nature that the outcome of them isn't important, if the outcome is important then you will have to go against the result of the referendum if the populace doesn't vote correctly or even worse end up having to implement bad policies to please the masses 5 6 7
Having a public vote can be an effective way to push through a controversial policy since people will be more willing to accept it if a majority voted for it, if the proposal doesn't get majority support then the proposal is modified and then people will have to vote again, if getting majority support isn't possible you might have to skip the referendum completely and push it through against the will of the people. Referendums can be limited to only some citizen-classes such as C0 or higher.
You do however run into issues when there are more than 2 options to choose from and there isn't any clear good way to resolve this via one (or multiple) elections 8 the obvious solution is to first have the senate select 2 options that are both good for the country and then have the public pick the winner.
Even with significant control over global and local media the ability for the ruling elite to shape the opinions of the populace will be limited, therefore the ruling elite will have to shape policies based on referendums and the opinions of randomly selected citizens.
Ideally referendums should be of the nature that the outcome of them isn't important, if the outcome is important then you will have to go against the result of the referendum if the populace doesn't vote correctly or even worse end up having to implement bad policies to please the masses 5 6 7
Having a public vote can be an effective way to push through a controversial policy since people will be more willing to accept it if a majority voted for it, if the proposal doesn't get majority support then the proposal is modified and then people will have to vote again, if getting majority support isn't possible you might have to skip the referendum completely and push it through against the will of the people. Referendums can be limited to only some citizen-classes such as C0 or higher.
You do however run into issues when there are more than 2 options to choose from and there isn't any clear good way to resolve this via one (or multiple) elections 8 the obvious solution is to first have the senate select 2 options that are both good for the country and then have the public pick the winner.
Elections
One issue with most elections is that multiple people are elected at once which makes it difficult for the public to actually choose the best candidates for all these elections, in addition the people voting are generally incompetent when it comes to government policy so we cannot expect them to figure out who is actually the best candidate. Often people just resort to voting for parties paying little attention to the individual candidates for these parties.
A general issue with parliamentary democracy is that people are expected to vote based on their party/coalition rather than what they actually think is the correct decision. Since people are up for re-election they will have to please the voters or party since otherwise they will not be able to keep their seats, thus people who act independently will over time be replaced with mindless button pressers who also happen to be good public speakers. In many countries people do not even vote for individuals in the first place, instead they vote for parties that get a number of seats based on their election result.
Generally in representative democracies parties are expected to form a coalition government and vote as a block to form a government, the system is not even set up well for the scenario where a majority is not able to consistently vote for a block (making the other members of parliament redundant since their votes don't matter at all). With pure elite rule all senators can vote as they please every time.
Since a small difference in how people vote can make a very big difference in what the resulting government becomes the system of fully democratic elections will be unstable and susceptible to malicious influence. People in control over significant resources will get a disproportionate amount of power since they will be able to leverage these to support the side that benefit them the most 9
When people vote for individuals it's often limited to various areas meaning who you vote for will depend on where you live, this of course open up the door for gerrymandering if these districts are drawn, if they are not drawn (like for the US senate) we end up significantly more people in some voting districts than others making the system undemocratic even though the point of voting was to make it democratic.
The clear solution is to only have a single national election every 1 to 5 years where only some (such as 1 of 15) are replaced each election and there is only a single winner. A single individual can be a candidate for multiple lists if more than one person is elected at once.
You can have the current ruling elite select the final 2 candidates or you can use something like https://star.vote/ to pick a single winner out of many.
Letting for society important citizens elect a leader can be a valuable tool in increasing the support for the government but then you have to make sure a suitable candidate actually get elected.
You do not need to get 80% of the votes to win a democratic election, you just have to get slightly more than 50% and then you will get to rule even if large portions of the population including valuable citizens oppose you. Why cater to people who would never vote for you in the first place?
Furthermore elections can also be a source of a lot of contention, people are likely to divide themselves into camps that go increasingly far to secure power for their own side. In addition by having elections to important positions of power you legitimize democracy which is not something you want to do.
In a democracy all aspects of your life as subject to majority rule including your sex life and what medical treatments you get. This creates an environment where groups constantly have to fight for their rights and often it takes decades to secure basic rights if these rights are secured at all. Increasingly groups will be pushed to become increasingly aggressive in securing benefits including political power for themselves, more and more resources will be poured into politics which isn't productive for society 10
Rather than unifying a country behind a government periodic elections can tear a country apart.
Generally with democracy people can only vote freely when/if the ones already in power allow that, the system depends on the ones elected not acting in their own self-interest.
Of course if people are very much in favor of democracy they will be unwilling to vote for people who are clearly against democracy but many politicians who oppose democracy will not be open about it. Furthermore people may care about their side winning more than the dysfunctional democratic system.
Since the voting citizens cannot instantly force a new election it might be too late once they are finally allowed to vote again. Each time you let people freely elect candidates you subject your country to great risk since these people are very likely to elect the wrong candidate which can end very badly.
Since people cannot instantly remove the ones they elected from power the ones voting will naturally be afraid to take risks with new parties, people are righteously afraid that they are going to unintentionally elect the next hitler to power.
Allowing people to instantly remove the elected representatives (such as by switching party) does however create other problems, then it only takes one temporary mass-psychosis at any moment for the system to fail, it does depend on the ones allowed to vote to act in a responsible and intelligent manner.
The damage done by a bad government is generally irreversible 11 12
Therefore for stability and sustained progress you need to have at least one of the following
0. Limit the impact of each election such as by only having some of the important positions of power be subject to elections.
1. Having strong election regulations to ensure a for society good outcome of each election.
2. Have people elected to a single long and fixed term.
One additional benefit with option 0 is that then a party or coalition can no longer grab power by barely getting a majority of the seats subjecting to democratic election, since many citizens refrain from voting you could otherwise get elected into power despite a majority being against you.
Option 1 can include severe limitations in who is allowed to vote (such as limiting it to C1 or higher).
It's unclear if option 2 would be enough to make the system functional but it would at least encourage the ones elected to vote as they please rather than trying to please their voters or their party. Senators will be able to cooperate with controversial senators without having to fear backlash from voters.
Senators acting independently can also be encouraged by limiting the number of senators to at most 19.
This will also make it easier for senators to cooperate such as working together to create a plan to invade another country, it's easier for a smaller group of people to effectively work together.
One issue with most elections is that multiple people are elected at once which makes it difficult for the public to actually choose the best candidates for all these elections, in addition the people voting are generally incompetent when it comes to government policy so we cannot expect them to figure out who is actually the best candidate. Often people just resort to voting for parties paying little attention to the individual candidates for these parties.
A general issue with parliamentary democracy is that people are expected to vote based on their party/coalition rather than what they actually think is the correct decision. Since people are up for re-election they will have to please the voters or party since otherwise they will not be able to keep their seats, thus people who act independently will over time be replaced with mindless button pressers who also happen to be good public speakers. In many countries people do not even vote for individuals in the first place, instead they vote for parties that get a number of seats based on their election result.
Generally in representative democracies parties are expected to form a coalition government and vote as a block to form a government, the system is not even set up well for the scenario where a majority is not able to consistently vote for a block (making the other members of parliament redundant since their votes don't matter at all). With pure elite rule all senators can vote as they please every time.
Since a small difference in how people vote can make a very big difference in what the resulting government becomes the system of fully democratic elections will be unstable and susceptible to malicious influence. People in control over significant resources will get a disproportionate amount of power since they will be able to leverage these to support the side that benefit them the most 9
When people vote for individuals it's often limited to various areas meaning who you vote for will depend on where you live, this of course open up the door for gerrymandering if these districts are drawn, if they are not drawn (like for the US senate) we end up significantly more people in some voting districts than others making the system undemocratic even though the point of voting was to make it democratic.
The clear solution is to only have a single national election every 1 to 5 years where only some (such as 1 of 15) are replaced each election and there is only a single winner. A single individual can be a candidate for multiple lists if more than one person is elected at once.
You can have the current ruling elite select the final 2 candidates or you can use something like https://star.vote/ to pick a single winner out of many.
Letting for society important citizens elect a leader can be a valuable tool in increasing the support for the government but then you have to make sure a suitable candidate actually get elected.
You do not need to get 80% of the votes to win a democratic election, you just have to get slightly more than 50% and then you will get to rule even if large portions of the population including valuable citizens oppose you. Why cater to people who would never vote for you in the first place?
Furthermore elections can also be a source of a lot of contention, people are likely to divide themselves into camps that go increasingly far to secure power for their own side. In addition by having elections to important positions of power you legitimize democracy which is not something you want to do.
In a democracy all aspects of your life as subject to majority rule including your sex life and what medical treatments you get. This creates an environment where groups constantly have to fight for their rights and often it takes decades to secure basic rights if these rights are secured at all. Increasingly groups will be pushed to become increasingly aggressive in securing benefits including political power for themselves, more and more resources will be poured into politics which isn't productive for society 10
Rather than unifying a country behind a government periodic elections can tear a country apart.
Generally with democracy people can only vote freely when/if the ones already in power allow that, the system depends on the ones elected not acting in their own self-interest.
Of course if people are very much in favor of democracy they will be unwilling to vote for people who are clearly against democracy but many politicians who oppose democracy will not be open about it. Furthermore people may care about their side winning more than the dysfunctional democratic system.
Since the voting citizens cannot instantly force a new election it might be too late once they are finally allowed to vote again. Each time you let people freely elect candidates you subject your country to great risk since these people are very likely to elect the wrong candidate which can end very badly.
Since people cannot instantly remove the ones they elected from power the ones voting will naturally be afraid to take risks with new parties, people are righteously afraid that they are going to unintentionally elect the next hitler to power.
Allowing people to instantly remove the elected representatives (such as by switching party) does however create other problems, then it only takes one temporary mass-psychosis at any moment for the system to fail, it does depend on the ones allowed to vote to act in a responsible and intelligent manner.
The damage done by a bad government is generally irreversible 11 12
Therefore for stability and sustained progress you need to have at least one of the following
0. Limit the impact of each election such as by only having some of the important positions of power be subject to elections.
1. Having strong election regulations to ensure a for society good outcome of each election.
2. Have people elected to a single long and fixed term.
One additional benefit with option 0 is that then a party or coalition can no longer grab power by barely getting a majority of the seats subjecting to democratic election, since many citizens refrain from voting you could otherwise get elected into power despite a majority being against you.
Option 1 can include severe limitations in who is allowed to vote (such as limiting it to C1 or higher).
It's unclear if option 2 would be enough to make the system functional but it would at least encourage the ones elected to vote as they please rather than trying to please their voters or their party. Senators will be able to cooperate with controversial senators without having to fear backlash from voters.
Senators acting independently can also be encouraged by limiting the number of senators to at most 19.
This will also make it easier for senators to cooperate such as working together to create a plan to invade another country, it's easier for a smaller group of people to effectively work together.
Achieving proper pure elite rule
It seems that no matter how the system of governance is set up it will eventually collapse into dictatorship if it starts out democratic. The problem is that typically when democracy collapses it does not result in proper pure elite rule, often instead the result is incompetent strong-man autocracy.
It is theoretically possible for proper pure elite rule to emerge out of autocracy such as via the autocrat selecting 9 people to take over the governance or by having 9 autocrats governing different areas merge themselves into one super-state. Unfortunately that tends to not actually happen.
A perhaps more interesting option is pushing for democracy to be set up in a such way that it is likely to collapse into elite rule rather than autocracy.
You can for example set up a system where 9 people get unlimited power and elect one of those 9 people every second year and only allowed an individual to get elected once. That system would probably last longer on average than parliamentary democracy and presidential systems but once it finally collapsed it would probably be into some type of elite rule since the ones already elected would be interested in regulating future elections to avoid bad things from happening.
Another way for elite rule to emerge is via a group of people collaborating to end democracy. It can be gaining control over media, gaining influence in political parties, infiltrating the military, etc.
While proper pure elite rule is clearly the best form of governance it’s also a lot harder to achieve than less competent forms of governance. Luckily it might be enough for it to emerge just once since once proper pure elite rule has been achieved once it can be spread to other areas via influence operations or military aggression.
It seems that no matter how the system of governance is set up it will eventually collapse into dictatorship if it starts out democratic. The problem is that typically when democracy collapses it does not result in proper pure elite rule, often instead the result is incompetent strong-man autocracy.
It is theoretically possible for proper pure elite rule to emerge out of autocracy such as via the autocrat selecting 9 people to take over the governance or by having 9 autocrats governing different areas merge themselves into one super-state. Unfortunately that tends to not actually happen.
A perhaps more interesting option is pushing for democracy to be set up in a such way that it is likely to collapse into elite rule rather than autocracy.
You can for example set up a system where 9 people get unlimited power and elect one of those 9 people every second year and only allowed an individual to get elected once. That system would probably last longer on average than parliamentary democracy and presidential systems but once it finally collapsed it would probably be into some type of elite rule since the ones already elected would be interested in regulating future elections to avoid bad things from happening.
Another way for elite rule to emerge is via a group of people collaborating to end democracy. It can be gaining control over media, gaining influence in political parties, infiltrating the military, etc.
While proper pure elite rule is clearly the best form of governance it’s also a lot harder to achieve than less competent forms of governance. Luckily it might be enough for it to emerge just once since once proper pure elite rule has been achieved once it can be spread to other areas via influence operations or military aggression.
Pure elite rule and diversity
Pure elite rule actually works the best when the ruling elite is diverse in terms of how they think, that makes it more likely someone will come up with a good path forward and it makes it less likely that a bad decision is going to be made due to a majority having the same bad reasoning.
https://vintologi.com/threads/autocracy-vs-pure-elite-rule.3347/#post-11490
It is also advantageous if the people who are being ruled feel that the ruling elite represents them (even if that's not actually the case).
So someone who would be better if ruling as an autocrat might not actually be better as a senator when they share the power with other people.
People should be selected based on what’s actually best for society as a whole even if it means having to select someone that is less capable as an individual. Individual competence is still of course very important but ultimately it comes down to the senate as a whole making the right decision and people actually having trust in that system.
Pure elite rule actually works the best when the ruling elite is diverse in terms of how they think, that makes it more likely someone will come up with a good path forward and it makes it less likely that a bad decision is going to be made due to a majority having the same bad reasoning.
https://vintologi.com/threads/autocracy-vs-pure-elite-rule.3347/#post-11490
It is also advantageous if the people who are being ruled feel that the ruling elite represents them (even if that's not actually the case).
So someone who would be better if ruling as an autocrat might not actually be better as a senator when they share the power with other people.
People should be selected based on what’s actually best for society as a whole even if it means having to select someone that is less capable as an individual. Individual competence is still of course very important but ultimately it comes down to the senate as a whole making the right decision and people actually having trust in that system.
Selecting and educating for competence
People will go though a selection and education process that is vastly superior to anything currently offered by even the most elite universities. Rather than being specialized (like university education tends to be) it will be generalized and include everything from physics to social control.
This will also make sure people are competent since less competent people will fail the education and be weeded out.
Actually it's good this way. People pay more attention when the see the word "manifesto" and are thus more prone towards actually reading it.
People will go though a selection and education process that is vastly superior to anything currently offered by even the most elite universities. Rather than being specialized (like university education tends to be) it will be generalized and include everything from physics to social control.
This will also make sure people are competent since less competent people will fail the education and be weeded out.
Actually it's good this way. People pay more attention when the see the word "manifesto" and are thus more prone towards actually reading it.