best form of goverment

[Angryjeff]

okay lets hear what everyone thinks is the best form of goverment and don't jsut say "democracy rules yeah go america" because all you'll be doing is making anyone else who sides with u look like an idiot. Personally i belive that totalitarinsm is the best. If you have someone in power who is fair and intelligent the state would thrive. Think about no more wasted tax dollers conduciting surveys to see waht the people want then sending it through a group of researchers then having it voted then being sent to another group etc... in one decision a country could go to war, raise and lower taxes etc.. I'm not saying that the ruler should be evil but keep a firm hold on the people enough to let them know he/she's willing to kill for the state.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I think a government that has these three purposes would be ideal:
1. the defense of it's citizens from threats of violence from inside (police force).
2. the defence of it's citizens from threats of violence from outside (military)
3. the defence of it's citizens from fraud, (judical system)

If that was all the government did, I don't see why there would be much fuss over who wins, so democracy would work just fine.

[IamjustSci]

Heh, I say go for a non democratic republic in which the more education the individual has the more his vote is worth: one vote for high school graduates, two for AA degrees, three for a bachellor's...and so on and so forth. I think it's pretty fucking stupid that some drunken hick in alabama's vote is worth as much as someone who actually has a brain. And yes I realize not all uneducated individuals are stupid, but in their own way if they have potential for greatness but dont utilize it, they are in a sense, quite stupid.

[Nightshadeplus]

At 1/7/03 01:29 PM, Scaletail wrote: Heh, I say go for a non democratic republic in which the more education the individual has the more his vote is worth: one vote for high school graduates, two for AA degrees, three for a bachellor's...and so on and so forth. I think it's pretty fucking stupid that some drunken hick in alabama's vote is worth as much as someone who actually has a brain. And yes I realize not all uneducated individuals are stupid, but in their own way if they have potential for greatness but dont utilize it, they are in a sense, quite stupid.

But what if they are too poor to go an ivy-league college? Not everyone is born rich, not that I'm saying you suggested that. Even with a job, it's hard for people to go to school at the same time you're trying to pay the bills, creditors, the school and so on.

[swayside]

a republic is the best form of government. every one votes directly on issues, not choose people who make their choices for them.

[NJDeadzone]

At 1/7/03 04:40 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I think a government that has these three purposes would be ideal:
1. the defense of it's citizens from threats of violence from inside (police force).
2. the defence of it's citizens from threats of violence from outside (military)
3. the defence of it's citizens from fraud, (judical system)

You hit the nail on the head, but don't forget that all successful governments must tax the people!

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Taxation is not the purpose of the government. that is why it's not listed. But there are administrative expenses, which includes taxation and buying land to put buildings on and all that. I figured that if my list had included
4. Some guy to figure out payroll for the police officers
and so on, it would reduce the quality of the argument

How about this. Money is often an indication of ones value to society, for every dollar one contributes to the government fund( for defense, police, justice), you get one vote. That way, people who aren't intelligent enough to understand the government (which under my system would be pretty hard to misunderstand) won't waste their time voting, and won't cost them any money. On the other hand, the extremely rich, who have a lot to lose if someone were to invade, will be able to contribute a great deal of money.

[MarijuanaClock]

Complete social/personal freedom

Limited enconomical freedom

A Socialistic state through heavy taxation

Limited-moderate Capitalism

The nationization of key resources and industries, but only the key resources and industries.

The gurrentee of complete and total protection of civil liberties. From the right to free speech to the right to bear arms.

The Elimination of the multi party system. Regions would elect representatives, and these representitives would form a council that governs said country.

The elimination of a regular military. The military would be comprised of reservists only, the military would only be mobilized for natural emergencies or invasion of said country.

ect.....

Basicly a odd combination of libretarian and socialist theories.

[Red-XXV]

My favorite form of government would be democratic socialism (I'll assume the people here are intelligent enough to know what socialism really means). However, the "best" form of government would probably be a meritocracy, which is a bit like Angryjeff spoke on. Much like Plato's Republic, the person most qualified to govern is the person who is in charge. I happen to prefer democracy (as I like having my say), but there are numerous examples of "the people" having a collective brain fart and elected the worst possible person for a position, so I wouldn't call it "the best" overall.

[Angryjeff]

At 1/7/03 04:27 PM, swayside wrote: a republic is the best form of government. every one
votes directly on issues, not choose people who
make their choices for them.

but what about in a country like china?? do u ahve any idea how hard it would be to have a vote when billions of people voted??

[IamjustSci]

But what if they are too poor to go an ivy-league college? Not everyone is born rich, not that I'm saying you suggested that. Even with a job, it's hard for people to go to school at the same time you're trying to pay the bills, creditors, the school and so on.

Whether people believe it or not, the country does have a financial aid system. I'm poor as dirt, but because of that my school is paid for by the government, and that's not including scholarships. In an essence, they pay me to go to school. It's not much, but it's enough where I can pay the bills with a part time job instead of having to be full time. The point of the matter is isn't exactly how it's done though: it's that stupid and ignorant people shouldn't have the same vote as the rest of the country. I don't care how...it just shouldn't happen.

[NJDeadzone]

At 1/7/03 07:18 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Taxation is not the purpose of the government. that is why it's not listed. But there are administrative expenses, which includes taxation and buying land to put buildings on and all that. I figured that if my list had included
4. Some guy to figure out payroll for the police officers
and so on, it would reduce the quality of the argument

Money is often an indication of ones value to society, for every dollar one contributes to the government fund( for defense, police, justice), you get one vote.

Your point is interesting, as for my meaning of taxes, it's more Lockean than anything else, demonstrating the people's investment in the government as the government's investment in its citizens. Your idea isn't much of a democracy, but there's no reason to badmouth it in theory. I wish there was an example of how this system However, there's nothing like the power of poor people to shut a government down. Heads rolled.

[Red-XXV]

At 1/7/03 07:18 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Money is often an indication of ones value to society, for every dollar one contributes to the government fund( for defense, police, justice), you get one vote. rstand) won't waste their time voting, andThat way, people who aren't intelligent enough to understand the government (which under my system would be pretty hard to misunde won't cost them any money. On the other hand, the extremely rich, who have a lot to lose if someone were to invade, will be able to contribute a great deal of money.

A large portion of California is full of people who are insanely rich, yet ultimately have little or no societal value. Why should some airhead who happens to look pretty and/or act well have more sway than a highly educated person who took a much lower paying job as a teacher in order to give back to society in a more hands on manner than simply giving block grants of money to the government?

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

These Airheads are paid because they have talents that the populace rewards them for. They should have just as much say in the government as anyone, who are we to decide that their source of income is inferior.

I think if they were too stupid to understand the government, they won't vote

[Red-XXV]

It won't matter if they don't understand the system you have in place. If they realize they can use their money to have more influence, they'll use it. I'm not saying their source of income is inferior, as their skills are a great contribution to our culture, but should someone who devotes more of themselves to a direct impact on the growth of society not receive an equal say? It's unfair representation to a greater scale than the use of soft money in politics now. Imagine a billionaire owner of a computer company using millions of dollars to influence policy in their favor by gaining millions of votes. Those in power can actively work to keep themselves in power to a larger scale than ever before.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

First, there really isn't anyone who has enough money to make massive effects on policy. Second, my ideal government would be constitutional, so there wouldn't be any policy to manipulate. Furthermore, the new system wouldn't make the rich much more powerful, they would still be limited by the risk of pissing off the rest of the country.

[Ted-Easton]

What are everyone's feelings on Anarchy?

[Ted-Easton]

Actually, forget that. It's too big of a topic. Please see thread- Anarchy -to post opinions.