![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
Table of Contents for Governance Systems Design
government or private corporation monopoly on violence practical ability of members to leave/ignore private orgs might be more restrictive
mb include stuff from my note somePrincipalsOfGovernance
mb list that long list of potential organizational values/goals?
criterion: reduce negative campaigning
criteria: Plato's government types/values (plato and the relation of values to power structure forms) (we should have a section talking about the relation of values to government forms, but warn that it is only a brief overview, because it's getting away from our main topic of procedure) (also some say that "as China focuses more on the development of moral individuals it places less importance on competition and technological progress in comparison with the West" -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Manifesto_for_a_Re-appraisal_of_Sinology_and_Reconstruction_of_Chinese_Culture)
criterion: preserve individual rights
criterion: legitimacy
criterion: stability
criterion: makes good decisions
criterion: reduce power struggles
criterion: give competitive people an outlet that doesn't involve violence
criterion: reflect external power shifts
criterion: minarchy, minimal law,
criterion: simplicity,
criterion: predictability (justitification for legal precedent)
criterion: promotion of sublegal innovation (contracts, etc)
criterion: procedural fairness
criterion: substantive fairness
criteria: Haidt's spheres of morality
criteria: simplicity of governmental system (because this promotes amenability to reform; the more easily the system can be understood, the more easily it can be analyzed and improved)
criteria: easy intelligibility of law (so that it's easy for non-experts to know what is illegal, and so that legal support at trial is cheap)
criteria: whistleblowers aren't practically forced into exile
criteria: economic development sub: GDP sub: per-capita income
criteria: military development
criteria: happiness
criteria: promotion of the structure of the family
criteria: promotion of morality
criteria: techological development
criteria: personal development
criteria: artistic development
criteria: education
criteria: promotion of health
criteria: finality and perceived impartiality and authority of decisions eg to approve or disapprove drugs, the FDA has staff who spend significant time studying the evidence, and who then prepare a presentation to a committe of loosely affiliated outside experts; the outside experts then vote on the decision. The FDA can ignore this vote, but usually doesn't. This doesn't make sense from the point of view of efficiently coming to the right decision most of the time, because for that you'd want the people who thought the most about the issue (the staff members) making the decision. But it makes sense from the point of view of finality and perceived impartiality; by doing this, it becomes less likely that outsiders will perceive FDA officials as corrupt and biased conspirators. The absence of a significant minority who feels strongly that the FDA is corrupt makes it improbable that their decisions will be strongly protested.
criteria: buy-in eg in a situation in which there are many officials, each of whom would be able to substantially impede execution of almost any course of action if they strongly disagreed with it, often there is an attempt to seek 'buy-in' of all of these people, meaning to win their consent before a course of action is chosen through negotiation
some de-facto 'freedom' criteria:
example of value-based governance choices in China: http://www.thechinastory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/csy2013_C00_intro_barme.pdf
todo consider adding some of or referring to the values listed in 'list of values used in Lincoln-Douglas debate' in [1]
note: the value of 'honesty' is hard to hold for rebel organizations, which must often operate in secret
is law expected to be the main determinant of limits on behavior, or is societal expectations supposed to be primary, with law just a fallback for those who won't conform?
" The Confucian Code of Rites (Liji), not law, is expected to be the controlling document on civilised behaviour. In the Confucian world view, rule of law is applied only to those who have fallen beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour. Civilised people are expected to observe proper rites. Only social outcasts are expected to have their actions controlled by law. Thus the rule of law is considered a state of barbaric primitiveness, prior to achieving the civilised state of voluntary observation of proper rites. What is legal is not necessarily moral or just. " -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_law#Imperial_law
one potential virtue of capitalistic systems with some degree of mobility: even if wealth is a prerequsite to political power, then if there is some mobility formerly excluded people can still enter this class. Whereas, it some non-capitalistic systems, wealth may in theory be controlled by 'the people' but actually by incumbents, and the same dynamic of wealth as a prerequisite to political power may apply, which may actually reduce the ability of formerly excluded people to gain political power below capitalist systems (this argument was made by [2]; "“Western” systems of government have plenty of flaws too. Families and groups with more money or power perpetuate their influence in society. But the door is always open for talented outsiders to gain power and earn wealth and, more importantly, to lose it.")
todo add the minimal criteria from my notes on principals of governance
