Making A Good Brain Great Test Commonwealth Educational Se: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the A2A. I would set up a Celebrationist government. Derived from the highly successful Venetian Republic’s system, this would add to that system certain more modern elements and—most especially—a production system based on sustainable abundance.The lumber would be helpful, but we’d quickly plant guadua bamboo and hemp to generate ample superior building materials for internal use. Likewise, the fish would be harvested, but with an eye to sustainability. Tourism would become greater still, as this society will become a bucket list type of destination, similar in some respects to a Disneyland for adults.Here are principles of such a government, from the end of my book:Appendix: A Possible Government StructureI have hinted at the overall structure of a celebrationist government elsewhere in this book, but did not want to let the vision get bogged down in the details. Here, for those who want them, are the details.This proposed possible system of government is designed to address specific deficiencies of modern systems, including the formation of political parties with attendant conflict, gridlock, campaigns for office and political influence; the disconnection of citizens from their government; and the conflation of a ceremonial leadership role with the executive.Citizen would be an office, hard-earned through an objective process of qualification, and never a birthright. One could live in such a society for life without becoming a Citizen, but would have no role in the government. The Citizens would BE the government.This system has four branches of government initially, with a fifth to be added when and if feasible. The four original branches are: parliament, judiciary, administration, and a new kind of royalty. All act in service to the Charter.The CharterThe Charter is a statement of principles to which all Citizens swear an Oath of support upon becoming Citizens. It is not a statement of good wishes that is then ignored whenever the government finds it to be inconvenient. It is instead explicitly treated as the highest law of the land.Any law passed by parliament or by Citizen Initiative that in any way conflicts with the Charter is to be declared entirely null and void by the Supreme Court and must be passed again in compliant form. Any legislator, administrator, judge, or royal who willfully violates the Charter without extraordinary need (as determined by an appropriate court) may be removed from office by Citizen or appropriate Branch supermajority vote and held to the highest standard of responsibility for such actions or omissions.The Charter may be changed in the following ways:· Upon consensus of all the four or five branches of government.· Upon Citizen Initiative, properly started by Citizens and receiving a specified supermajority of votes.· Once there are multiple such cities, a League of Celebration Societies may be established amongst them to address common concerns and opportunities. Such a league may have the power to change the model charter but, in my view, should not have the power to enforce change upon a preexisting society’s Charter.However the Charter is changed, I would suggest that there be an automatic review process one year after adoption before the change becomes permanent. (This would borrow from Iceland’s history in which, “It was specified that every new enactment should be subject to a probationary period of 3 years before … becoming permanent.”[1]) I think this would be a good idea for laws in general—there are often unintended consequences that can only been seen after the passage of time.I would favor a system in which each branch of government, to the extent practicable, conducts its own affairs, filling vacancies and making promotions based on a system that is transparent and deemed acceptable amongst its members and the Citizens.I would also favor a system wherein voting, to the extent used in a celebration society, involves consensus-building ranking of one’s choices rather than simply selecting one option. In this manner, a widely favored second or third choice might win rather than a first choice that fails to garner an absolute majority, thereby eliminating the need for multiple votes (i.e. runoffs).ParliamentParliament works much as it did in the Venetian system. Any Citizen, at any time (barring incapacity) may be called through the periodic lottery to serve in parliament for a single term. Parliamentary terms are staggered to prevent the emergence of parties, with terms varying from, for example, 3 months to 3 years. Openings occur upon completion of term, death, incapacity or resignation. There are no elections of members; each Citizen is presumed competent to serve.Parliament elects its own leadership and sets its own rules of operation. It also selects the members of the Administration Council, preferably through consensus and secondarily through election.Parliament may have a physical place of meeting and/or support virtual meetings. Voting need not require physical presence; only a secure means of sharing communications.By eliminating the corrupting influence of election campaigns and political parties, lobbying will return to its original function of providing information and arguments to decision-makers rather than buying their cooperation.JudiciaryIn modern America, as in much of the world today, the independence and integrity of the judicial system is in danger. Much of this danger, at least in America, comes from the politicization of all aspects of government in thralldom to money. Increasingly, judges are being elected.[2]By eliminating the election of judges and changing the society’s relationship with money, independence and integrity will have a better chance.Private influence of friends upon friends will of course remain. However, a monetary system in which all transactions are electronic allows for easy auditing to reduce the chance of large-scale bribes and conspiracies.I envision the judiciary having three levels: Adjudicating Courts, Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court. Seats on the adjudicating courts could be assigned to Citizens selected randomly by lottery, or who volunteer for the post. Given that the legal system will be clear, simple and intelligible to an average Citizen, this is plausible. (Indeed, I would argue that a system in which a Citizen requires a lawyer to understand the law is excessively complex.)However, even with a streamlined and rational legal system[3] and assistive AI’s there will still be a need for familiarity with bodies of law and, possibly, precedent. I would see random selection, if adopted, as limited to Adjudicating Courts.Appellate judges should be persons with significant experience in and understanding of the law. Their selection could be by consensus of serving adjudicating judges. Another option would be for the Court senior to that court where a judge is needed to put forth a list of candidates it deems suitable, with Citizen voting then choosing from amongst those candidates. For example, upon an Appellate opening, the Supreme Court could produce a list of candidates, likely from among serving Adjudicating judges. The Citizens would then vote their selection from this list.Supreme Court Justices could be selected and serve as follows: upon an opening, Justices are chosen by consensus of the currently serving judges. There are 9 Justices, with terms staggered annually. Each Justice serves a single 9 year term. In the 9thand final year, that Justice serves as Chief Justice, having the most experience of anyone serving on the court. She or he sets the agenda, participates in discussion and debates, but votes only to break ties.[4] As a check upon judicial power, I would advocate that Citizen Initiative be able to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice by 2/3 vote.There is also a question as to whether the legal system should be adversarial. This approach is prized in America. In nations such as Costa Rica and Japan that do not have an adversarial legal system, lawsuits are few and lawyers are modestly paid.I expect that the profession of lawyer will change to something new, and it may split into different functions. For example, In Britain, the American concept of lawyer is broken into two different positions, barrister and solicitor.Any ambiguity in the Charter, as determined by the Supreme Court, would require immediate rectification either by consensus of the branches of government or by a supermajority vote of the Citizens. If a law is ambiguous in any particular, the Supreme Court would void it. Such voiding could happen quickly, but I expect very rarely as this requirement will necessitate great care in the wording of proposed laws. I would anticipate that laws would never be passed without being read by all voting members of parliament.All laws must be brief and intelligible to an average citizen. While this reposes more powers in the judicial system than may be customary today, it also keeps government simple and avoids bureaucracy.Civil disagreements will ordinarily be resolved through mediation and arbitration, based upon standard forms of agreement that can be modified by the parties. In addition, recordings of communications, whether public, or if private with mutual consent to the recording, are also admissible as evidence.Per the Venetian model, alleged non-civil offenses may be reported via a secret but not anonymous complaint. Anyone who suspects a crime may submit a secret written complaint to the appropriate Court. It must be signed and witnessed by at least one Citizen in addition to the complainant. If the offense is charged and convicted or if it is determined to be groundless after investigation but a reasonable person could have inferred an offense from the evidence that was available, the reporting note is kept secret. However, if the court determines that the charges were both unwarranted and malicious, the penalty for the offense(s) alleged falls upon the complainant.There are no “crimes” per se. There are “intentional offenses” and “accidental offenses”, with the understanding that negligence is presumed to be negative intent. The whole system is oriented towards restoration and protection against future offenses. It is only punitive to the extent that such is required to enforce these purposes.[5]As an example of the legal system’s workings, with a culture that emphasizes safety, transparency and rationality there will likely not be a need for rigid building codes. However, certain practices such as standard wiring will be highly recommended, and most likely qualify the owner for lower insurance rates. Further, when it comes time to sell such a building, the one that can certify compliance with the recommended practices will be easier to sell at a higher price. As part of the transparency, the celebration society will require full documentation of everything done to the building from initial construction to present circumstances.Contracts become simpler as well. For example, suppose that John and Sally orally make a contract. Sally agrees to invest certain assets into a corporation that John is forming in exchange for certain ownership. They agree to later finalize the details in writing. John does not follow through in a reasonable time. Sally may enter the matter into mediation, which will automatically become arbitration if the mediation fails. Sally and John may enter into evidence third party testimony, but the strongest evidence will be recordings of their conversations about the matter—made automatically in public or, if in private, by recorded mutual consent.Another and perhaps more common conflict might arise when some people have a party in a public park, creating noise that upsets a neighbor. In current societies, where there is no recording of public communications and noises, the concept of “too loud” is subjective and much debated. In a celebration society, a decibel threshold could be specified in law and recordings would determine compliance.If a person who is mentally ill commits an offence, they are isolated as necessary to protect others and themselves. The isolation is not punitive, and continues until they are deemed cured by the best available scientific psychological testing. Complaint may be made and a court may decide to isolate or supervise this person even prior to an offense being committed. For example, a person suffering from dementia might be declared no longer competent to function as a Citizen and, following exhaustion of appeals (if any), placed into protective care.AdministrationThe Administration Council oversees the administrative duties of the government and society. There are a fixed number of ministers, perhaps 10. Each minister has a portfolio, similar to such in other parliamentary systems. They head the major areas of administration, potentially including education, health, infrastructure, foreign relations, banking/money, and others.The Administration Council hires a paid, professional city or national administrator to manage the general administrative functions, particularly in those areas where Ministries overlap. (There may be subsidiary levels of administration, as appropriate.) Each ministry may hire its own administrator and staff as appropriate and as funded by parliament.Administration administers. It does not lead. There is no prime minister nor is there a president. The Sarvay may represent the government in discussions with other government leaders, but cannot make decisions. Instead, decisions are made by the Administration Council or, as appropriate, by the Branches working together. The Administration Council may send other representatives to accompany the Sarvay in such discussions, preceding a vote.Ministers are appointed by parliament for fixed, non-renewable terms of service, which may or may not be staggered as decided by parliament. Upon completion of a term of service, an ex-minister is customarily expected to mentor her or his replacement. These ministers will, ideally, be persons of impeccable morality and wisdom. They can be removed by vote of parliament or by Citizen initiative.All administrative and parliamentary positions are unpaid if the person has passive income exceeding a comfortable predetermined threshold such as US $100,000 per year. When the occupant earns less than that threshold, the government will make up the difference to assure that financial concerns never color a leader’s judgment. (Singapore has achieved a high level of professionalism and non-corruption among government workers by making the positions highly paid and respected.) There will be no revolving door between government and industry, perhaps assured by a multi-year delay in any appointments of former officials to activities they formerly supervised.Ministers must refrain from all active business interests, placing such into blind trusts while on the Council. The Ministers come together to decide matters that extend beyond an individual minister’s portfolio, and they may collectively review any individual minister’s actions.RoyaltyRoyalty serves, at its best, to inspire and uplift society. It serves in pageantry, ceremony and celebration. It provides a focus and a model to emulate. It is not about entitlement.This will be a royalty unlike any the world has known since the Doge of the Venetian Republic. It will have no power, except as an equal branch of the government in instances where agreement among multiple branches of government is required or, in one particular function discussed below, as a tiebreaker. Therefore, it is in no way a monarchy. It is a meritocratic royalty.This royalty serves two functions: to exemplify the highest values of the Charter and to preside at ceremonial events. (These would include celebrations, weddings, speeches, commencement of great projects or organizations, inaugurations, VIP visits, etc.) They may also serve in ambassadorial, emissary and plenipotentiary capacities. Some of these functions will necessitate long periods apart from their home, living in significantly less desirable conditions. Therefore ambassadorial service, in whatever capacity of title or support, would be a high form of service.People are inducted into the Royalty by invitation of the Royalty itself, and must first be Citizens. Royalty is a lifetime appointment, absent egregious misconduct. This is not an office but an honorific with responsibilities.Though tied to a particular celebration society, royalty will have no geographic authority or power. Therefore, I consider the traditional titles to be inadequate.I envision three tiers and titles within the Royalty: Servant, Great Servant and Sarvay. None of these titles carries with it any power except for the Sarvay who has a tie-breaking vote on the Administration Council. Therefore Sarvay should be time-limited, perhaps with an honorific title afterwards of Sarvay Emeritus.The Sarvay (a Sanskrit word meaning, “for all”) will serve as a leading exemplar of the society’s values—similar to the Doge of the Venetian Republic. The Royalty chooses the Sarvay. This person walks, talks, and lives service to the society. This person serves as “head of state”—though only in a ceremonial capacity of service rather than one of power.A handful of royals, possibly three, are designated Great Servant, or Mahana Sevaka. Upon the retirement from office, completion of term, death or incapacitation of the Sarvay, one of them is appointed as his or her successor by consensus of the Royalty. Another possibility is that, upon constitution of a new celebration society, a Mahana Sevaka from an existing celebration society would be invited to assume the role of Sarvay in the new celebration society, helping the Citizens there to build their own royalty.Induction into the Royalty would carry with it additional responsibilities but no additional privileges. This would help to assure that royals are truly motivated by desire to serve rather than the pursuit of some sort of personal gain.A Possible Fifth Branch of GovernmentWisdom, it turns out, is measurable and cross-cultural. Dilip Jeste has made a study of it and found that:The traits of the wise tend to include compassion and empathy, good social reasoning and decision making, equanimity, tolerance of divergent values, comfort with uncertainty and ambiguity. And the whole package is more than the sum of the parts, because these traits work together to improve life not only for the wise but also for their communities. Wisdom is pro-social.[6]Although people often talk wistfully about the need for wisdom of elders guiding society, it remains elusive. There are several reasons. Elders are often compromised by infirmities. Also, with the rate of change now being so rapid, much of elders’ perspective seems dated. However, when in the future elders remain in good health for centuries or longer, they will have the long vantage point that such lifespans in good health will afford them. Remaining aware of recent developments in society and technology, I expect that their views will be much more highly regarded.As discussed elsewhere, by the mid to late 21st century physical immortality may become an option, either in a biological body immunized against decay and disease, or by the downloading of memories and personality into a computer. This will not necessarily be the person but, from the standpoint of contributions to society, that may make no difference.Immortality, in whatever form, would enable an important fifth branch of government. I call it the Council of Immortals.In his Republic, Plato described how a society will decay over time, as more enlightened rulers would inevitably be replaced by those less enlightened. Errors of judgment would compound, and the decay would continue until the society would eventually devolve into tyranny.The problem is how to ensure continuity of wisdom. Essentially, for any civilization to endure while remaining true to its values, it needs for those values to be explicitly codified. However, that is not enough. The world is full of nations with high-minded principles codified in their founding constitutions; principles routinely ignored in practice. Also, the meanings of words and phrases changes with context, time and advancements in society.What is needed are not just wise people to guide the society, but a vigilant, informed citizenry (as demanded by Thomas Jefferson); ideally supported (not ruled) by wise immortals. We stand at the threshold of this possibility.As Aubrey de Grey has pointed out, all that is needed to achieve immortality is to gain at least one day of life for each day lived. The kind of regeneration required is now being researched by scientists, and some exciting tools are already at hand. When nanotechnology can monitor and repair all cellular damage, immortality may be achieved. Biological repair may also suffice.Regardless of the method ultimately used, I expect that persons whose wisdom has guided a celebration society for a long time will desire to continue to do so. What could be more satisfying, more joyful? Whether they remain human or become something else, I envision such a Council of Immortals providing a long-range perspective not inherent to the other four branches of government.While this would be only one of the five branches, I expect that the other branches would rarely if ever vote against this council. (For that reason, it might vote only in the event of a tie amongst the other four branches.) It seems likely that this council would run numerous simulations of every proposed major change to the society and share the results with the rest of the branches and the Citizens.If the entire society eventually becomes one of immortals, the need for this council may fade away. But even then it might continue as a body expressly constituted to assure continuity of the society’s values; a body whose members have taken upon themselves the ultimate level of service.[1] A History of the Old Icelandic Commonwealth, Jón Jóhannesson.[2] Courting Corruption: How Judicial Elections Threaten the Justice System[3] Model legal systems have been devised and proposed by researchers, and should be considered as starting points.[4] The Chief Justice, then, would have a function in the court system similar to that of the Sarvay in the administrative system.[5] Some believe that only execution assures an offender cannot again commit a heinous crime. Others argue that innocent persons are sometimes executed. Segregation without sentences of dangerous offenders with continuous monitoring, and until brain normalization, assures that both concerns are addressed.[6] The Real Roots of Midlife Crisis