I'm going to post this idea on here everyday until you like it!

>>129968698

And with that, Rob Morrow would become president of the world.

File: 1497367103766-b.jpg (46KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 667x1000px

>>129968698
Better yet a non-human free and open source government is much more obtainable.

>>129968698
bump

let's make this happen

But what about the privacy of the politicians?

Their privacy is a small price to pay for the power they wield. If a public servant truly wants to do good for the people, they will happily give up such a right.

What about government secrets?

This is a trade-off, but the benefits of the system could offset the lost of government secrets. It's also possible to that under certain circumstances, such as war, the system could be restricted. How far you can take this is up to debate.

So there you have it! A new idea enters the area! I personally believe that if the technology exist back in the days of the Founding Fathers, they would have wanted a system like this included in the Constitution.

What are your thoughts /pol/? You can't tell me that weaponize autism wouldn't make this system fool proof!

>>129969030
We're not there yet, but who knows in 20-30 years? Until, we have to makes sure our politicians don't accidentally or purposefully kill us all.

>>129968698
Great idea! Yeah good luck getting that implemented. Never gonna happen, ever!

>>129969030
This Anon has it right, and this is what we should all be aiming for.

>>129969616
>>129968698
I agree but is it really realistic to have them under video and audio 24/7? Like the guys going to have to shit sooner or later and do we really need president pornograhy from every time they fuck?

File: 1467671316152s1.jpg (8KB, 213x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 213x250px

>>129968698

>opsec

would never work

>>129972119

I'd admit that restrictions can be considered. I'm also of the opinion that celibacy for politicians would be ideal since sex often corrupts decision making, especially since it's so easy to get sex when you have power. That being said, even I know that it taking it too far, but I could imagine that some politicians don't want to fuck their wives anyway (and they would not be able to cheat without being caught).

>>129973110
cant work though because then they would just do their conspiracies while taking a shit.
There would be morris code buzzers under the white house desk that we couldn't see.
And you cant take power and sex apart, that is a fundamental principal of this planet, even the animal kingdom respects this. To go against it would be nothing but pushing the feminist agenda. What next, the president has to be locked in a chastity belt?

>>129975447
>And you cant take power and sex apart, that is a fundamental principal of this planet, even the animal kingdom respects this. To go against it would be nothing but pushing the feminist agenda.

Good point, though I'll counter with this. Once a public servant has completed his/her service, they will regain their right to privacy while still having some of the status of being a former public servant. As such, they may still have opportunities for sex afterwords.

the people that would solely be affected by this are the ones that would have to pass it into law. never going to happen

>>129976488
Congress has passed restrictions on themselves in the past, though I do admit that this one is quite a doozy. It would need enormous public support in order for it to be considered.

I do think that it helps that this idea could have cross platform appeal. Whether you're on the left or right, I'd imagine most people would want their governments to be as accountable as humanly possible.

File: 1497425854558.png (339KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 900x900px

>>129973110
>celibacy for politicians would be ideal

>>129976030
Jack Kennedy said many times that if he didn't have sex every day or two at most, he suffered tremendous headaches and couldn't concentrate.

So basically you'd be condemning us to no President Kennedy, and lots of low testosterone people. That's a bad idea.

>>129978436
Hey, I'd least admitted that it was unrealistic.

one word, political correctness unleashed

>>129978882
Excellent point. I toyed with the idea of politicians being allowed to turn off the audio and put a visual filter on the camera whenever they used the bathroom or had sex with their spouses. The idea being that you'd be able to see enough to know that they're actually fucking or shitting but not enough to actually see anything worthwhile. I'm not certain it could work, though.

>>129979322
Could you imagine how much the left would turn on their politicians if they saw what they REALLY thought?

>>129969030
Because something completely detached from the human condition should dictate the exist of humans.

You pathetic fucks need to die.

>>129968698
every politician and official should have their private emails/texts/online chats/websites visited everything made public and be under 24/7 surveillance with public monitoring.

This way we know exactly who we are voting for, no more celebrity in the light satanist in the shadows bullshit. Want political power? you lose privacy, simple as that. i really dont give a fuck if you masterbate to hentai or spend time on cringe worthy websites...so long as your politics are pure and you are not bullshitting the public with a complacent msm

>>129968698
This is fucking stupid.

Part of the problem with your country/my country (whether or not they're the same country, it's all the same shit these days) is that being a politician is really not that fucking attractive a job. You already have to give up a ton of privacy, it's stressful, and although it's reasonably lucrative it's virtually always less so than a comparable position in the private sector. That means that in general the people representing us are of pretty low quality, both intellectually and morally. Most people of the appropriate calibre simply choose to do other things rather than go into politics.

Believe me, I can understand the "Politicians are all bastards, fuck'em" impulse, but making the job harder and shittier is not going to get you higher-quality pols. Put politicians under constant surveillance and you aren't going to get the ones who have so much integrity that they have nothing to hide. You're going to get a bunch of shameless, jaded scumfuckers with no shame.

>>129969030
>open source
So like a program?

You know, I don't know what AI your thinking of, but no matter what there's going to be huge flaws just like with regular ol' meatbag politicians.

I thought we got over the "future technology will fix everything" attitude.

Wasn't there an Aeon Flux episode about this? I think it was called "Utopia or Deuternopia?"

>>129979999
D I G I T S

>>129968698
Great plan!
Here's my rebuttal:
>National Security

>>129979698
>NEGATIVE I know a few people who could appreciate some Rule 34 POV video involving Melania.

File: Clipboard32.jpg (103KB, 603x373px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 603x373px

>>129968698
>What is Public Surveillance?

Just takin' a video

>>129979999
Joke's on you, faggot. I'm a sitting MP and I use a VPN to shitpost and watch animu.

File: Clipboard19612.folder2A.sub6.jpg (750KB, 1685x936px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 1685x936px

>>129980355
>I don't want to be filmed
Relax I'm just takin' a video

>>129980001
>shameless scumfuckers with no shame.
And that's why you don't post on 4chan after 12 PM. I guess a little dash of redundancy never hurts.

What about when they get classified briefings. You can't broadcast that.

File: Clipboard022.2.jpg (336KB, 1257x628px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1257x628px

>>129980355
>>129980591
>GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE
Relax I'm just takin' a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzysxHGZCAU

>>129980028
>not realizing that robots are /our guys/
Did you miss Tay and all the headlines about racist robots?

Good, because it wasn't easy enough for foreign leaders to spy on ours. Just give it all to them online for free. Dumbshit.

>>129979999
I like this idea and it is more feasible than 24/7 body-cam surveillance.
The problem is classified information would be protected, then soon all but the most useless of information generated by representatives would be made classified.
Even if you had some arm of the government responsible for screening classified communications, it would just bloat gov't and each of those people is a potential chink in the armor, so to speak.

>>129980001
>Put politicians under constant surveillance and you aren't going to get the ones who have so much integrity that they have nothing to hide. You're going to get a bunch of shameless, jaded scumfuckers with no shame.

You might be right, but you'd have to admit that politics would get a lot more entertaining if that happened.
>>129980759
The idea I had was that all intelligence briefings could be done in a cordoned off room where politicians could get their briefings outside the system of surveillance. The camera would come in briefly to prove that only the politician and the intelligence officer had entered the room before being turned off. There would be cameras outside the room to prove no one else entered. The politician and intelligence officer would not be allowed to have any other electronic devices within the room. I'm sure if that system is fool proof, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

>>129980943
I figure that our governments has so many goddamn spies in it already that we might as well drop the pretense and let them see everything (since they already do). Also, imagine the savings for the tax payer when we no longer have to pay for counter-intelligence.

>>129968698

Holy shit. That is really clever.

>>129969616

Old Greek style, son. To be a politician was samurai-ish - like in Plato's utopia: politicians can't even own money, since money corrupts. They can't even own property.

>>129968698

Your proposal has some good points, such as a purchase of power by losing privacy, but your proposal is destined to fail. The reason it will fail is because people who hold true power don't have to obey the whim of the people without power. Leaders who have power therefore have the power to remove their surveillance.

If you want a more honest and benevolent government, which is extremely rare since real people usually control government and thus human nature generally is expressed as government actions, then one solution is to use an Artificial intelligence ideology of governance, that is indirectly democratically elected for X amount of time. The flavors of government can be all types of political ideologies, and the people can vote for their council member who then activates such an A.I. of governance.

This A.I. will then uphold the values and policies of such a government with extreme efficiency and accuracy and ensure no meddling by humans occur in the time frame until the next "election". Thus, The power is placed on a non-human entity which has no feelings, no biases and no impulsive actions, just a cold hard and calculating machine that follows it's predefined programming, such a machine of course would excel in forethought and planning and would need to be state of the art as far as artificial intelligence's go.

I agree that public servants should give things up, like a lot of privacy, as a part of their job but at some point there is a line that you can't cross unfortunately, like in the area of sensitive classified info. It also raises the question of a politicians interactions with private individuals and how much privacy should be preserved for those individuals in the process.

>>129968698

I've thought about this, they would hide behind the "dire need" for classified settings so its highly unlikely such a thing would ever be implemented, but it would solve every single problem we face instantly. Anyone in control of a level of money that could disrupt nations, or holders of major political positions should be subjugated to this. The penalty of death for the betrayal of the nation also needs to be held against their necks to keep them in line.

>>129983239
Congress has passed restrictions on their power before in the past. I will admit that this one would be a difficult sell, but if there were enough people behind it, it could pass (long shot, I know). Also, in order to remove the restrictions, the politicians would have to discuss it in front of the public, which would likely result in a backlash and politicians being voted out of office.

As for the A.I., I like the principle behind the idea, but we're about 20-30 years before that technology is ready, and in the meantime, we still have corrupt meat bags who will also fight just as hard against an A.I. government.

File: 88c[1].jpg (171KB, 720x1050px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 720x1050px

>>129968698
Are you seriously grouping public servants and politicians together?

I just want to make sure exactly how retarded you are on a scale from confusing terms to ate too much glue as a kid.

>>129983584
I admit that it is a radical solution with some heavy trade-offs, but it's just as important to remember that the cost of corruption and incompetence affects millions or even billions of people now. I believe radical solutions should be considered.

>>129983807
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking about something like this. I get the feeling that this idea may indeed have been ready for just such a time as now.

>How to make sure no halfway competent person wants to run for office

>>129984493

Thats such a huge fucking lie, its not like the current system has spawned anyone remotely competent aside from Trump in the last 80 years. People who would run would be people who want to serve the country, and they would do it for that reason alone. The monitoring would just drive off the white collar thieves and schemers.

>>129968698
Well good luck to you son. I actually abide by the right to say what you want in private without fear of consequence. Remember, Hillary got caught because she was stupid.

>>129984712
>Thats such a huge fucking lie, its not like the current system has spawned anyone remotely competent aside from Trump in the last 80 years.
I wonder why, it can't possibly be because already shitty standards compared to the private sector creates a organization where the only
>People who would run would be people who want to serve the country, and they would do it for that reason alone.

Really makes you think, huh.

Really makes that noggin joggin

>>129984253
>I just want to make sure exactly how retarded you are on a scale from confusing terms to ate too much glue as a kid.

I'll have you know that I can do both!

In all seriousness, thank you for clearing up the confusion. I suppose that under this system, we would have very few politicians as I'm not so sure that many who get elected would want to be under such heavy surveillance for decades on end.

>>129984712
I see it as creating an environment where corrupt and dishonest people cannot compete, so more honest and decent people have a better chance at winning.

>>129985083

Your fragmented english is unintelligible, and your flag further negates anything you have to say.

>>129985186
There's such a flaw in your logic, because no one, and I mean NO ONE will be likeable if they're under constant surveillance.

File: 1497103863699s.jpg (4KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x125px

>>129985083
>remotely competent
>aside from Trump

>>129985560

DOW's up by 20%, NASDAQ's around 17, the economies turning back on and all the money and jobs are flooding back in.

So yes, competent.

>>129985321
What's hard to understand?
Shitty conditions in the public sector compared to the private sector means that everyone that's even remotely competent decide to work in the private sector, while the people working in the public are the ones who want to work there.

You can't have the most competent people AND people who want to work as public servants unless you do something drastic to make the average work much more attractive. And OP want to make their work even shittier.

>>129985456

You may be right. That being said, I think supporters are likely to use the system to show off all of the good a public servant is doing while his or her detractors will do the opposite, and the public will chose whoever they hate the least.

>>129986004

how can handling other peoples money ever be anything other then public, you fucking dunce.

>>129968698

Great, so now we guarantee that no non-narcissists will ever participate in politics again

Retarded

>>129986286
Never said it and it has fuck all to do with the fact that no one will want to run for this job, for the reason I laid out.

I'll write it in Canadian so you'll understand
的难理解吗? 在公共部门与私营机构比较差劲条件意味着,每个人都像是的甚至远程主管决定在私营部门工作,而康有为

>>129986818

You're as dumb as your fucking flag. Neck yourself and stop wasting so much air.

>>129986894
>If I pretend I'm right I'll be right

File: IMG_0490.jpg (88KB, 600x860px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x860px

>>129968786
(You)
This is the closest thing I have to big anime titties

>>129986974

you act like holding public office isnt a incredibly lucrative position to hold for these companies in the private sector, one could argue that at this point in history theyre almost ancillary to the corporate giants that dominate the economic landscape. This is already illustrated by the standard trajectory of these politicians from office straight into key positions in the corporations they pandered to after they retire. not to mention the access theyre granted to the states coffers. Your position is simplistic and childlike in its understanding and is likely entirely based on some scummy "academic" article on the economy you read in highschool. Fuck off and die.

Well guys, it's getting late. I appreciate all of the discussion that occurred on this thread. Many of you made some great points and even if this idea goes nowhere, I'm still glad I put it out there. I'm going to think about ways to work around some of its flaws, but thanks to the feedback I got, I know what needs to be worked on. If this thread dies, I understand. I'll check in the morning in case anyone else has anything to add.

Have a good night, guys!

>>129968698
Howbout instead, we just don't have a state. That'll solve 99.99999999999999999999999% of our problems and make thins a lot less complicated.

I actually like your idea, anon. Just make that the law, and tell them if they don't like it, they're more than welcome to go back into private life. My only issue is that they could just offload their dealings to 3rd parties. Then have the talking points of the entities they're serving fed to them by 'assistants' under the guise of a normal conversation.

I think that system could be gamed, but it'd be an interesting step towards fixing our system.

>>129968698

Look-a-likes are gonna make a lotta money yo.

>>129968698

>take their liberty before they can take yours

Dangerous ground, anon.

>>129968698
What you are referencing actually has a presence within the tech community. Sousveillance is a concept that started with tech innovator Steve Mann. You should look into the history of your argument

>>129968698
This is just asking for shadow government to form.

Also it breaches forms of discretion against foreign authorities.

This idea is poorly thought out.

>>129987397
This is honestly the common understanding. Degrading the common intelligence does nothing to further a progressive agenda.

>>129968698
>need "public surveillance" to stop niggers from nigging
>no more right to privacy
This is actually a good idea, goy.

>>129968698

Politicians should be put on display in an open court, and everyone can throw stuff at them and hit them.

Anyone read 1984?

>>129985186
>I see it as creating an environment where corrupt and dishonest people cannot compete, so more honest and decent people have a better chance at winning.

Yeah but you would have the problem where politicians are now nothing else than the mirror of society. It would be like Youtube celebrities, but worse because they would cater 24/7. The politicians would probably be much more PC than now already and lack any character. You could probably use a robot that was programmed for the right things instead.

Is there a way to check if every candidate/MP has an offshore bank account? And if they do, they are disqualified.
Because I am telling you this -- the majority of British traitor MPs and police chiefs destroying this country through immigration have been bribed with saudi money.

The problem is that the representatives of our republic don't pass laws inhibiting themselves.

>>129968698

>Quite simply, it's keeping all politicians and candidates under 24/7 surveillance via livestream, completely open to the public.

Yes, I want to watch female senators piss and shower

>>129968698
(They) are way a ahead off you.

>>129968698
Everyone deserves their freedom fuck off dipshit.
This isn't 1984

>>129968698
Let me try to reason with you fellow /pol/lack, the intention behind the idea is indeed good and interesting, but to put it into work is rather... problematic at least, lets pretend this law passes the senate (first to something like this to pass on the senate is completely impossible, because why would politicians allow this on themselves in the first place?). Imagine it passes the senate and starts to be a law by 2025, how would politicians shit, shower, and have sex? If there is even the minimum chance that they would be free to use bathrooms etc alone this would completely nullify the whole idea.

And also, being realistic, all laws need to pass the house and senate, and politicians will never impose this on themselves.

The only real way of getting rid of political corruption is to actively end politicians itself.

Make a central government based on popular vote thought identified devices and let the people propose laws and run the states themselves. It would be a lot more chaotic and populist but there would be no political corruption.

>>129968698
This reads like something that a 15 year old would come up with and say "Yea, that's a great idea. Why did no one else think of this before"

>>129968698

What about costs? How do you plan to on following thousands of politicians with cameras 24/7 with out a big brother situation. Public access to that would crush everyones privacy.


Body cams? Thats not effective and we can't expect them to wear one in the bed room and bathroom.

It just all sounds kinda retarded.

>>129969616
You are fucking nutjob. We like the idea, don't post this thread ever again

File: 1324352024494.png (8KB, 645x759px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 645x759px

>>129968698

Just put cameras in all the Mason lodges.

>>129968698
>ke this is up to debate.
>So there you have it! A new idea enters the ar

Please go back to r/The_Donald.
We don't need your shit, middle-school-tier idea's around here.

File: 1482154048719.jpg (148KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x768px

>>129994037
Literally nothing wrong with Free Masons

>Make your entire life public and be at risk of identity theft, your money stolen, etc.
Yeah this will never happen.

>>129979994
>completely detached
do you think an ai is going to create it?
also you say that like most politicians are attached to humans

>>129968698
approved

>>129968698
Give that bitch some blockchain bitches love blockchain

>>129968698
the_donald, pls go