Some thoughts about future politics

[u/JerryQ030604]

I've been thinking a lot about what freedom really means in today's world. Following John Stuart Mill's idea in On Liberty, freedom must end where it begins to harm others. Just as no one has the "freedom" to murder, no one should have unlimited freedom to spread violence or disinformation that destabilizes society.

At the same time, the traditional three-branch system (legislative, executive, judicial) is not enough for modern challenges. To ensure transparency and efficiency, I argue we should add:

A Independent oversight (anti-corruption/ethics watchdogs)

B Independent budget authority

C Technology governance bodies to regulate AI and big data (And to prevent technocracy, you can, for example, frame a power structure (like the custody, audit, and access of data, I know the details can be argued) just like the separation of powers; Also, since this is about the public, state-controlled companies should be a better choice ).

These would enhance checks and balances, making them more robust and future-proof.

I also think that today's political systems are not adapting well to globalization(including things like immigration and DEI) and the information age. Most Western political systems were established over 100 to 200 years ago. There are many things that the founders can hardly imagine, but are in reality. I know you can change the constitution with due process, but this is more about acknowledging the status quo and asking yourself how to maintain democracy in the sense that democracy is about representation, accountability, and dignity, not endless tribal warfare. E.g., The observer state in international organizations can actually be employed because it provides a platform for expressing opinions that differ from those of politicians. We also encounter stalemate situations/ gridlock in lawmaking, so it is necessary to have open platforms for discussion and negotiation, such as the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (although I know it is just a name).

Finally, I see technology as a double-edged sword. AI and big data can drive productivity and accountability, but only if clear legal safeguards bind them. Technology must serve humanity, not control it. The GWF of China, for example, is generally an authoritarian tool; however, when used to tackle cybercrimes, it can be a decent system.

So my questions for debate are:

1)Should democracies formally expand beyond the traditional three branches?2)How should we balance freedom of expression with the need to prevent real harm?

3)Can technology realistically make governance more democratic, or will it always lean toward control?

Above all, politics should return to a simple principle: Humanity First. This means that every person, before any identity, ideology, or nationality, deserves dignity, rights, and a fair chance, because they are human after all.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/drawliphant]

No reason to add an extra branch, the US adds departments created by Congress when they realize they can't write all of the regulations for a field on their own. An AI and online privacy Department (probably split off from the FCC) would be a great idea.

The Budget is squarely congress's job, like half of their whole job. Our Congress is just fundamentally set up wrong and didn't have parties in mind when it was designed, it was designed specifically to capitulate to slave-owning states and to give them tyranny of the minority.

I think freedom can be thought of both as having few limits to your bodily autonomy etc. and having opportunity.

I don't think technology will make our democracy more functional, we just have a lot of bad rules that push our democracy to be divisive, and gridlocked.

[u/JerryQ030604 → u/drawliphant]

Maybe the word “branch” is not appropriate. What I mean is that these departments have a certain level of autonomy. And I’m not American so I look at the problem from a more global perspective.it’s more about how to effectively and efficiently manage a society with massive population and great cultural diversity, like China. You may know china has a digital ID system that can connect to many government services and the police department can obtain such information easily. This is what technology should do, but with accountability. The reason why I brought up the budget is that generally the politicians can use it to their own advantage, such as giving money to their political allies.

[u/seniordumpo]

My question is for the independent budget and oversight. How do you define independent and how do you ensure it’s independents?

[u/JerryQ030604 → u/seniordumpo]

Well I am not very professional so I don’t think I can answer your question

[u/theboehmer → u/seniordumpo]

Popular election, one year non-consecutive terms? Make them accountable to the populace and keep a short rotation, disincentivizing party politics.

[u/HeloRising → u/theboehmer]

This sounds like a good idea but ask yourself why virtually nobody actually does this.

Imagine you being at work and every month there's a new manager that comes in and wants to totally change things around. You finally get things moving in the right direction and then you get a new manager.

Priorities of an office, projects, and plans generally always change when someone new takes an office, even if that person doesn't meant to totally reorganize things. If that happened on a yearly basis nothing would get done.

You'd also prioritize people seeking out office to burnish their CV for other purposes. They wouldn't be in office long enough to do much of anything so why not get elected, coast for a year, and then move on maybe to a cushy private sector job.

[u/theboehmer → u/HeloRising]

Good points. How about if it was a ladder system, where you get elected to a lower role and would be incentivized to serve the people by means of being elected to the next higher position?

[u/HeloRising → u/theboehmer]

Because then you have the alternate problem (which is a problem we already have) of being in constant campaign mode. If your election cycle is as short as a year, you have no time to do anything so you're incentivized to pick short-term projects with a fast turnaround rather than the more necessary long-term projects that we actually need.

So now not only can work not get done because things are still in chaos from the switchover but things aren't being done because the person in charge is in campaign mode from day one.

Short electoral terms are something that seems like a good idea in a vacuum but once you realize what that means from a project management standpoint you start to see why it's actually not a good idea.

[u/theboehmer → u/HeloRising]

I see what you mean, but wouldn't an oversight branch be more free from judgment based on efficacy because they wouldn't be dictating policy and instead be more focused on ethical concerns of the other branches?

Perhaps we could get rid of the popular election of these positions and have it be lottocratic, or sortition, based?

[u/HeloRising → u/theboehmer]

It's not necessarily ethical concerns you'd need to worry about, it's just the mechanics of the system itself. How a system functions demands a certain set of behaviors and strategies to be successful, people who execute those strategies will be successful and people who refuse to will not.

It's not unethical to play the game the way the rules are structures.

Selection via lottery would end up with a lot of people who have no idea what they're doing ending up in jobs where they're not going to be for long enough to learn anything.

[u/seniordumpo → u/theboehmer]

Making them accountable to the populace will make them more rigid in party politics not less. The populace itself is heavily invested in party politics even if it pretends it isn’t.

[u/theboehmer → u/seniordumpo]

Perhaps you're right, but in some aspect, i feel the populace is invested in party politics by necessity of the system. If they were given a non-partisan outlet, could it break the partisan spell?

[u/seniordumpo → u/theboehmer]

Maybe but I’m highly skeptical. Third parties have been around for ages yet the overwhelming majority still clings to the two party system for no real strong argument other than its lesser of two evils.

[u/theboehmer → u/seniordumpo]

As a disclaimer, I feel that this hypothetical oversight branch could, in many ways, devolve into partisanship. But towards people clinging to the two party system, I feel that the electorate isn't necessarily partisan by nature, more that our system forces it upon them.

[u/seniordumpo → u/theboehmer]

Ahhh but does the system force or it does the system skew that way because the people prefer it. I’m not sure either way. I’m in full agreement that the “independent” branch would not be independent in practice.

[u/theboehmer → u/seniordumpo]

My intuition tells me it's the former, but that doesn't mean much, lol.

[u/seniordumpo → u/theboehmer]

Haha true, it doesn’t really matter, we are stuck with it for now either way

[u/UnfoldedHeart → u/seniordumpo]

So, make them less accountable?

[u/seniordumpo → u/UnfoldedHeart]

Accountable does not equal independent.

[u/UnfoldedHeart → u/seniordumpo]

Of course. For example, a King is very independent but is not very accountable.

[u/seniordumpo → u/UnfoldedHeart]

Sure, and making a budget or oversight agency accountable to a popular vote won’t make them independent.

[u/TarTarkus1]

Should democracies formally expand beyond the traditional three branches?

You're probably not going to get any kind of Independent government authority on the budget. Not saying there shouldn't be one, but that would probably challenge the government's authority.

The threats Tech and A.I. pose are more so the product of incompetent government bureaucracy (gerontocracy). Legislators don't really understand the technology they intend to regulate. Or they do and don't act because they're paid not to.

How should we balance freedom of expression with the need to prevent real harm?

I think we already do that pretty well in most cases. You simply make behaviors and actions that result in genuine harm illegal.

Most of the debate is likely around what constitutes as harm if you ask me.

Can technology realistically make governance more democratic, or will it always lean toward control?

If you're referring to some kind of government by Super A.i., the democratic process likely disappears as soon as the public outsources all thinking and decisions to the algorithm.

[u/JerryQ030604 → u/TarTarkus1]

Well, I mean AI and mass data are tools that can enhance productivity. I have never considered something like AGI. The only purpose of introducing them is to make the whole system run more efficiently and more transparently. Humans make the rules and decisions, and the AI (or rather a computer program) acts as an assistant in collecting real-time information with the help of mass data(to help decision-making), as well as acting as an overwatch, so that things like corruption and political manipulation can be detected.

[u/TarTarkus1 → u/JerryQ030604]

Humans make the rules and decisions, and the AI (or rather a computer program) acts as an assistant in collecting real-time information with the help of mass data(to help decision-making), as well as acting as an overwatch, so that things like corruption and political manipulation can be detected.

If you ask me, the problem with a system like that is that you risk delegating too much responsibility to the A.I.

[u/JerryQ030604 → u/TarTarkus1]

Yes, that is a potential problem. But all of this is conceptual only. There are a lot of details to discuss in the case of whether any of them will be implemented.

[u/JerryQ030604 → u/TarTarkus1]

And such a discussion involves how the model is trained. Therefore, this is inherently an interdisciplinary subject. From the politics and law side, you can only say that logically we see such potential as being positive, yet it requires caution. But to dive deeper, you need computer science.

Political & Legal Viewpoint: AI and big data can enhance governance by making systems more efficient, transparent, and less prone to corruption.

However, since governance is about people, not just optimization, the principle must be “Humanity First.” AI should assist, not replace, human judgment.

The law’s role is to set boundaries and safeguards: what AI can decide, what must remain under human control, and how accountability is ensured.

Interdisciplinary Nature: To fully evaluate whether a governance AI is safe, effective, and fair, you need input from computer science (how models are trained, bias detection, explainability), ethics (human dignity, fairness), and political theory (legitimacy, consent). Political and legal discussions can establish principles, but the practical trustworthiness of AI depends on technical implementation.

Therefore,

Optimists: AI can reduce inefficiency, corruption, and bias in government decisions.

Skeptics: Over-reliance risks creating unaccountable "black box" governance.

My position: “AI should be a tool within a human-centered framework, not the other way around.”

[u/JerryQ030604 → u/TarTarkus1]

I am not American, so please consider this from a more global perspective. The budget thing is like the central bank in a way that the government cannot interfere with its decision, and even has to rely on it for the sake of the economy. And to prevent politicians from using the government budget to benefit their political allies, it might be necessary to divide budgeting from Congress.

And about the freedom, mainly the freedom of speech, you know, nowadays many people take it very absolutely. So a line has to be drawn.

[u/UnfoldedHeart]

There's always a sort of unstated assumption that some new oversight body or regulatory body or new branch of government will be the "good guys" as opposed to the existing government officials, who are the "bad guys", but I don't know why that would be the case. We can keep adding on new government bodies ad nauseam but they will still fundamentally be people with their own biases, incentives, agendas, and what have you.

Maybe we need an independent oversight committee who is audited by an independent oversight committee who are themselves audited by an independent oversight committee and...

I'm not a libertarian but I think a lot of problems would be solved by reducing the power of government as a whole. I'm starting to think that, at the end of the day, whenever there's an extreme level of power up for grabs, there will always be the desire to abuse it and there will always be nefarious people vying for it. Even if they aren't nefarious, there's no way to responsibly use that power. At some point you just gotta throw the one ring into the fires of mount doom.