This sounds like anarchy or utter gridlock lock.
That may be wishful thinking.
So are you saying we would still elect legislators? ……the legislative field is no different than a department in the administrative state.
Yes, people without experience in governing cannot directly compete for national leadership positions. — panwei
I don't know why you think the budget will be so large, — panwei
That I think may be too big a job for one person - even for a kung fu panda. You suppress the budget for public works, no public works get done. There will be no workers to assign tasks to and no report card, because nobody put "Raise my taxes" as top priority on their questionnaire, and you've used up all the money, so can't pay salaries.I will suppress its budget. I have the right to decide how to assign tasks within the county government and how to set points. In order to avoid failure, I will suppress its budget. — panwei
I'm sure it will helpful to know what people wanted 20 years ago! Universities can't conduct new research, whoever directs them, without funding.Universities have been conducting research in political science, statistics, etc. for a long time. Whether this system exists or not, the relevant inputs have always existed. This system only gives them a research direction and incorporates existing research results into the system. — panwei
That's a multi-part, ambiguous question. Even so, somebody has to ask it, figure out what different people mean by their answers and tally the responses. Integrated with what contract? Has it been written? All the people don't use one signature; they'd have to line up, be given the paper, hand in a copy, which would have to be filed.Tasks can be integrated. For example, questionnaires can be directly integrated into the contract signed between the people and the government. The questionnaire only has this question: What public demands do you think need to be promoted by the government at present, and what are your requirements for these demands? — panwei
So do other nations' civil servants - within their own special area, judged by their instructors or supervisors - not the population at large. Are you saying only people already in the civil service are eligible for office? That would be a closed system, with no input from from the governed. It could work, as long as all the department and agency directors are able to communicate effectively, agree on priorities and procedure, then allocate resources and co-ordinate their efforts. In that case, all you need from the people is a year-end review.Chinese civil servants themselves need to pass exams, and their promotions themselves need to go through internal examinations. — panwei
But can represent the will of the people far more accurately that a questionnaire made up by people.Artificial intelligence cannot replace the decision of the people. — panwei
Land ownership is a human invention (an abominable one) and has been so hotly contested in history as to cause millions of lives.Because from a normative perspective, land ownership does not belong to artificial intelligence, but to the people, — panwei
How will 'the people' enforce those demand, when they own almost nothing and the oligarchs own almost everything? An independent AI could solve the disparity, but one owned by the oligarchs can only make it worse.so even if artificial intelligence is in power, it still needs to be authorized by the people. — panwei
votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected);
people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.
Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion.
superfluous — panwei
By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs. — panwei
And these standards are exactly the content of the contract. — panwei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.