[troof]

The main rules should be: as long as you don't hurt yourself or hurt anybody else, as long as you don't take others' freedom or your own freedom, you can do whatever you want, without exception. Also, violence should only be used either to protect the innocent, or to fight the law if the law becomes intolerable (just as the American revolution happened because of "intolerable acts.")

The government should be a democracy just like America, with one difference: the representatives and the people voting for them should have great intellect and great compassion (both together, otherwise they cannot vote, and cannot run for office.) They need to have every relevant kind of intelligence: intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic, and existential. To test for compassion, I came up with one idea: study the brain activity of mothers with their children, and compare it to the brain activity of strangers with strangers. The strangers who have similar brain activity to the mothers are the most compassionate.

I call this Free Democratic Meritocracy, FDM.

I found this on google on the topic of measuring these kinds of intelligence:

Assessment methods:
Observational techniques: Teachers and psychologists may observe behaviors indicative of these intelligences, like strong social skills (interpersonal), self-awareness (intrapersonal), deep questioning about life meaning (existential), and eloquent communication (linguistic). 
Qualitative assessments: Some assessments use open-ended questions, creative writing prompts, or personal reflection exercises to explore these areas of intelligence. 
Specific tests: Certain tests are designed to tap into specific aspects of these intelligences, but they may not be standardized or widely used.

I almost forgot: wild animals are balanced between good and evil, but humanity is split. For balance, we need to select people who are balanced between good and evil, between pro- and anti-establishment.

Oh, and: the voters/representatives have to be tested periodically to ensure they haven't lost their good qualities.

[Mosaic Mystic]

The main rules should be: as long as you don't hurt yourself or hurt anybody else, as long as you don't take others' freedom or your own freedom, you can do whatever you want, without exception.

Isn’t this essentially a restatement of the libertarian non-aggression principle? While this idea sounds appealing in theory, "hurt" is not limited to physical harm—it can also be verbal or indirect. Words, including slurs, can cause significant harm. For example, you can't just say "fire" in a crowded theater without consequences. That said, I do agree with aspects of your statement, such as the idea that possessing weed or other drugs shouldn't result in imprisonment, as it doesn't inherently harm others. We need to focus on making prisons less inhumane, abolishing the death penalty, and prioritizing rehabilitation over severe punishment.

Violence should only be used either to protect the innocent, or to fight the law if the law becomes intolerable.

I disagree. Violence should be reserved primarily for self-defense. Using violence against the law—even if deemed "intolerable"—can escalate conflict unnecessarily and often leads to more harm than good.

The government should be a democracy just like America, with one difference: the representatives and the people voting for them should have great intellect and great compassion. They need to have every relevant kind of intelligence: intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic, and existential. To test for compassion, I came up with one idea: study the brain activity of mothers with their children, and compare it to the brain activity of strangers with strangers. The strangers who have similar brain activity to the mothers are the most compassionate.

This raises several issues. First, how do you define "good intelligence"? Are you suggesting intelligence tests to determine who can or cannot vote? Intelligence is influenced by countless factors, many of which are environmental—education, wealth, and family life, for example. This system risks being exclusionary and inhumane to those deemed "less intelligent." It borders on eugenics, privileging the intellectually "fit" while marginalizing others.

I almost forgot: wild animals are balanced between good and evil, but humanity is split. For balance, we need to select people who are balanced between good and evil, between pro- and anti-establishment.

This is vague. What do you mean by "good" and "evil"? What defines "anti-establishment" versus "pro-establishment"? The polarization you seem to desire already exists; disagreement in society isn’t something we lack.

Oh, and: the voters/representatives have to be tested periodically to ensure they haven't lost their good qualities.

This suggestion of repeated testing comes off as elitist and biased. These tests would likely favor the wealthy and well-educated—those who already benefit from systemic privilege. It risks creating a fascist oligarchy where the "qualified" dominate governance. And what if you, yourself, failed such a test? Would you accept being stripped of your voting rights for being deemed "too dumb"?

You’re contradicting yourself. You claim that no one should harm others or take away their freedom, yet you advocate for arbitrary intelligence tests to strip "dumb people"—those who don’t meet your personal definition of intelligence—of their freedom. By doing this, you’re actively causing the harm you condemned at the beginning of your post.

[troof]

What I'm basically saying is unless we are free to do whatever we want (provided it isn't harmful) we are not free.

And I'm saying that democracy is rule by the people, of the people, for the people, but in general people are unintelligent and only some are compassionate. So I advocate a democracy of the intelligent/compassionate. It's a combination of democracy and meritocracy.

Also, measuring intelligence shouldn't be just an IQ test, because IQ only tests mathematical intelligence (and similar kinds of intelligence to that required for skill in mathematics.) I'm saying we should test for intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic and existential intelligence. There is no need to discriminate based on race or wealth: just the best of the best from every race and class should be allowed to vote/run for office.

The opposite is tyranny by the mob/mediocre masses.

[Tainari88]

What I'm basically saying is unless we are free to do whatever we want (provided it isn't harmful) we are not free.

And I'm saying that democracy is rule by the people, of the people, for the people, but in general people are unintelligent and only some are compassionate. So I advocate a democracy of the intelligent/compassionate. It's a combination of democracy and meritocracy.

Also, measuring intelligence shouldn't be just an IQ test, because IQ only tests mathematical intelligence (and similar kinds of intelligence to that required for skill in mathematics.) I'm saying we should test for intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic and existential intelligence. There is no need to discriminate based on race or wealth: just the best of the best from every race and class should be allowed to vote/run for office.

The opposite is tyranny by the mob/mediocre masses.

Who shapes the value systems of society anyway? The tyranny of the few, over the work and lifeblood of the many.

No, what is needed is a much better system all together.

But you are right about candidates. Got to get people who are good humane leaders.

You can find out which ones they are easily. But that they get the positions? Usually not. Because greed is the main value system that runs the USA.

[Hakeer]

What I'm basically saying is unless we are free to do whatever we want (provided it isn't harmful) we are not free.

And I'm saying that democracy is rule by the people, of the people, for the people, but in general people are unintelligent and only some are compassionate. So I advocate a democracy of the intelligent/compassionate. It's a combination of democracy and meritocracy.

Also, measuring intelligence shouldn't be just an IQ test, because IQ only tests mathematical intelligence (and similar kinds of intelligence to that required for skill in mathematics.) I'm saying we should test for intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic and existential intelligence. There is no need to discriminate based on race or wealth: just the best of the best from every race and class should be allowed to vote/run for office.

The opposite is tyranny by the mob/mediocre masses.

A great salesman would pass your test with flying colors. But I don’t want that guy running the government.

[troof]

Oh, and I forgot to add: when someone makes more than say, 2 million dollars, they have to give the rest away to a public fund. The poor should receive this money in the form of tokens (not cash because with cash they can buy alcohol or drugs.) These tokens should be for food, clothes, shelter, entertainment... anything that a person needs to live a comfortable life. Corporations, on the other hand, should be allowed to have a lot of money because they need it to produce good products. People amassing vast sums of money is obscene. They have no need for it, they can live a perfectly luxurious life with 2 million dollars. And corporations should only be allowed to have what they need to produce excellent quality products. Of course, all this should be adjusted for inflation as time passes. Also, air is free, because there's enough air for everyone. If we use science to produce enough of everything for everyone, everything can be free. Ideally everyone should live the life of a billionaire, because everything is so abundant that it's free.

[Mosaic Mystic]

What I'm basically saying is unless we are free to do whatever we want (provided it isn't harmful), we are not free.

Repeating this statement doesn’t make it any more valid, and it doesn’t address any of my objections. This argument is therefore easily dismissed.

And I'm saying that democracy is rule by the people, of the people, for the people, but in general, people are unintelligent and only some are compassionate. So I advocate a democracy of the intelligent/compassionate. It's a combination of democracy and meritocracy.

Creating arbitrary tests to rank people based on intelligence and compassion is self-contradictory and, at worst, insincere. Compassion cannot coexist with a system that classifies people into hierarchies of superiority and inferiority, a structure your proposed tests would institutionalize and legitimize. You’re attempting to have it both ways.

Also, measuring intelligence shouldn't be just an IQ test, because IQ only tests mathematical intelligence (and similar kinds of intelligence to that required for skill in mathematics). I'm saying we should test for intra-personal, interpersonal, linguistic, and existential intelligence. There is no need to discriminate based on race or wealth: just the best of the best from every race and class should be allowed to vote/run for office.

This argument is little more than an attempt to repackage eugenics under the guise of inclusivity. Granting "superior" individuals special privileges like voting and running for office is harmful, and you’re advocating for harm while simultaneously claiming harm should be avoided.

A person's intelligence is heavily influenced by numerous environmental factors, meaning that the most privileged individuals will typically come from wealthier areas with access to superior education, supportive parents, and a wealth of other advantages. It's naive to ignore the role these disparities play in creating unequal opportunities. The idea that the best individuals from every class and race would succeed in your ideal society is unrealistic, as those in lower-income groups haven't had the same opportunities or head start.

The opposite is tyranny by the mob/mediocre masses.

This is a meaningless slogan. In a democracy like America, an elite class wields significant influence, which is the direct result of the wealth gap. Referring to the majority as "the mob" is a smear, particularly when the "mob" is simply the majority that feels ignored by an elite class focused on preserving its power.