Well, the historical Chinese system wasn't very good at dealing with changing circumstances and dealt with it by discouraging technological innovation.

If you let the system change freely it'll change to a form that causes the meritocratic parts (and even the openness to dissenting voices part) to collapse.

I don't know whether it's possible to combine stability and adaptability. My attempt would be to include an "unquestionable core" to protect meritocracy and the ability to question everything else. But as St. Thomas Aquinas's successors discovered, even that may not work.

If you let the system change to freely it'll change to a form that causes the meritocratic parts (and even the openness to dissenting voices part) to collapse.

What exactly do you think it will change into?

My attempt would be to include an "unquestionable core" to protect meritocracy and the ability to question everything else.

A plausible idea. Essentially the government would have a constitution. Another idea would be that the constitution can be changed, but with differing levels of unanimity needed (so the "unquestionable core" would need a 90% vote to change for example - I'm worried about making anything entirely irrevocable.)

Non-standard politics

by NancyLebovitz 1 min read24th Oct 2014235 comments

3


In the big survey, political views are divided into large categories so that statistics are possible. This article is an attempt to supply a text field so that we can get a little better view of the range of beliefs.

My political views aren't adequately expressed by "libertarian". I call myself a liberal-flavored libertarian, by which I mean that I want the government to hurt people less. The possibility that the government is giving too much to poor people is low on my list of concerns. I also believe that harm-causing processes should be shut down before support systems

So, what political beliefs do you have that don't match the usual meaning of your preferred label?