Oh no, I'm talking about incentives in a different sense. For example, a politician's incentives for satisfying their constituents is that they get to keep their job. Then there are the personal incentives, for example, one might get into politics because one is interested in gaining power or influence within the political system or over people. So what I'm saying is that I don't think that the current incentives that entice people to become politicians are necessarily the best ones as I'm not sure I like the kinds of people that become politicians. To adapt your analogy: if your boat is taking on water, then maybe you should maneuver it on to the ice.
I don't know. I haven't read Plato except in passing. I'm not really sure what a good beginning point would be. Any suggestions? I just don't know that what we've got going on will best serve us as is. I am not advocating for broad experimentation with different political structures though. It would be nice if there were some reliable and safe way to test out political structures in the real world, but again, that's a pleasant fantasy.
Oh, I was referring to Plato's "technocrats raised to rule" plan. I read Plato about a thousand years ago when my brain was more flexible, I'm sure it would kill me now. I am sure there are better translations now. We started with "The Republic" and went onto his essays. Don't say I didn't warn you. -XC PS - There is a way to test out different political structures. It's called federalism and is why California is so fundamentally different than Texas, or Delaware is different than New Hampshire. Brill!