Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well, i think a dictatorship would be the best if u had a perfect dictator, but thats impossible. So i think the best is mixed or socialist

Democracy.

It seems to be the only government that keeps people's greed in check.

What do you mean by "best"? Best for the people, best for the economy, most succesful? Dictatorships can be good for the country (like it improves the economy or global influence or something), but bad for the freedom of the people.

Communism. Democratic communism.

At 9/7/08 05:07 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Communism. Democratic communism.

Reflect upon what you have written and then upon history.

At 9/7/08 05:03 PM, Saruman200 wrote: What do you mean by "best"? Best for the people, best for the economy, most succesful? Dictatorships can be good for the country (like it improves the economy or global influence or something), but bad for the freedom of the people.

There are probably many ways to look at this subject. There's good for the lower, middle, or upper classes. (Like a Monarchy would be better for the upper class people) There's good for the average or powerful. (Like i think communism is good for those in power) There's good for freedom. (Im not sure but i think the usa is the only major country to have democracy so we dont know how any other countries would turn out)

Then there's good for overall... I guess we should go with that for now....

Show me a time in history when democratic communism was in place and the whole world was not against it.

At 9/7/08 04:51 PM, TheSweetGirl wrote: Democracy.

It seems to be the only government that keeps people's greed in check.

Isn't a representative government very susceptible to bribery?

At 9/7/08 05:33 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 9/7/08 04:51 PM, TheSweetGirl wrote: Democracy.

It seems to be the only government that keeps people's greed in check.

Isn't a representative government very susceptible to bribery?

That is true dude! I think bribery is the only reason that the government hasn't come out and said that fast food, oil, or something like that is bad for the USA. All you've got to do is slip a few bucks into a representative's pocket and your good to go!

At 9/7/08 05:26 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Show me a time in history when democratic communism was in place and the whole world was not against it.

Well firstly the idea of any form of government goes against marxist principles for anything but the short term and secondly Chile enjoyed a period of democratically elected communism in the 70's. I say enjoyed; the economy crashed, inflation soared, the cities starved and the independant press collapsed. Oh and before you accuse the hostility of other nations for the economic collapse it was actually caused by rapid nationalisation which naturally lead to incredible inefficiancy. The cities starved, as always, due to ridiculous agrarian reforms.

Communism is not a good idea. Personally I favour a small-government, capitalistic democracy with a limited social net to protect (but not suffocate) its citizens from misfortune.

At 9/7/08 05:18 PM, hawkkid777 wrote: There are probably many ways to look at this subject. There's good for the lower, middle, or upper classes. (Like a Monarchy would be better for the upper class people) There's good for the average or powerful. (Like i think communism is good for those in power) There's good for freedom. (Im not sure but i think the usa is the only major country to have democracy so we dont know how any other countries would turn out)

To be honest, there has been nothing yet in history that had been "good" for the lower class. Everything has mostly affected the upper class (usually positively) and the middle class (a mix of positive and negative). Nobody cares about the lower class.

At 9/7/08 06:04 PM, Snayke wrote: To be honest, there has been nothing yet in history that had been "good" for the lower class. Everything has mostly affected the upper class (usually positively) and the middle class (a mix of positive and negative). Nobody cares about the lower class.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. I guess i was just covering a broad spectrum of things...

At 9/7/08 06:09 PM, hawkkid777 wrote:

At 9/7/08 06:04 PM, Snayke wrote: To be honest, there has been nothing yet in history that had been "good" for the lower class. Everything has mostly affected the upper class (usually positively) and the middle class (a mix of positive and negative). Nobody cares about the lower class.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. I guess i was just covering a broad spectrum of things...

Well, everything has been more or less the same in terms of socioecnomoic status. The only differing theme would be the extent of freedoms allowed.

At 9/7/08 06:04 PM, Snayke wrote: To be honest, there has been nothing yet in history that had been "good" for the lower class. Everything has mostly affected the upper class (usually positively) and the middle class (a mix of positive and negative). Nobody cares about the lower class.

DIdnt Chavez in Venezuela lower the poverty rate from some like 40% to 17%? Bolivarianism or something, I cant say I know to much about it, but he appears to of drastically improved the lives of the poor and working classes.

At 9/7/08 05:43 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 9/7/08 05:26 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Show me a time in history when democratic communism was in place and the whole world was not against it.

Well firstly the idea of any form of government goes against marxist principles for anything but the short term and secondly Chile enjoyed a period of democratically elected communism in the 70's. I say enjoyed; the economy crashed, inflation soared, the cities starved and the independant press collapsed. Oh and before you accuse the hostility of other nations for the economic collapse it was actually caused by rapid nationalisation which naturally lead to incredible inefficiancy. The cities starved, as always, due to ridiculous agrarian reforms.

I assume you refer to Salvador Allende. For the first year of Allende's term, his economic policies were very sucessful, and the average quality of life of the Chilean soared. However, copper, the main source of income for Chile, lost a lot of value, thus crippling Chile's economy. Exports declined, and food began to rise in cost, negating the raising of wages that had helped the Chilean people. When the price of copper was steady, Allende's economic plans were very succesful. The fall in price of copper was what hurt the Chilean economy, not Allende. This didn't last long though. A military coup d'etat backed by the CIA ousted Allende and forced Chile into a military dictarship till the 1990s.

CaiWengi is kinda right, the ideal form of government is Democratic Socialism. However, I'm no democratic socialist. I don't see it ever becoming a reality anytime soon, but fundamentally it would be the best government for everyone. Good for the people (democracy, freedom, equality), and potentially good for the nation. Problem is, it's unrealistic. Everything is subjective. Depends where the system of government is established, when, how strong the nation was before the government was implemented. Too many x factors to call a single best form of government. Of course, in ideal circumstances, democratic socialism takes the cake, but when are there ever ideal circumstances?

Communism is not a good idea. Personally I favour a small-government, capitalistic democracy with a limited social net to protect (but not suffocate) its citizens from misfortune.

A democratic (Republican) government is best. Communism and socialism may SOUND good, but all they lead to is overpowerment, higher taxes, no freedom, no individuality, and everything that makes America great.

At 9/7/08 06:29 PM, CaiWengi wrote:

At 9/7/08 06:04 PM, Snayke wrote: To be honest, there has been nothing yet in history that had been "good" for the lower class. Everything has mostly affected the upper class (usually positively) and the middle class (a mix of positive and negative). Nobody cares about the lower class.

DIdnt Chavez in Venezuela lower the poverty rate from some like 40% to 17%? Bolivarianism or something, I cant say I know to much about it, but he appears to of drastically improved the lives of the poor and working classes.

And now everyone is only allowed to ration out the minimal amount of food equivalent to that of one Happy Meal... per week.

A representative, but not a direct representitave, democratic-republic based on Judaeo-Christian values.

I Win.

OWNED

At 9/7/08 10:41 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I assume you refer to Salvador Allende.

You assume correctly.

For the first year of Allende's term, his economic policies were very sucessful, and the average quality of life of the Chilean soared. However, copper, the main source of income for Chile, lost a lot of value, thus crippling Chile's economy. Exports declined, and food began to rise in cost, negating the raising of wages that had helped the Chilean people. When the price of copper was steady, Allende's economic plans were very succesful. The fall in price of copper was what hurt the Chilean economy, not Allende. This didn't last long though. A military coup d'etat backed by the CIA ousted Allende and forced Chile into a military dictarship till the 1990s.

Allende's economic plans were short sighted; the fall in copper prices and lack of international aid undoubtedly played a very large role in the country's fall however that is not the whole tale. Under the new plan industry was often forcefully nationalised which damaged the fledgeling market infrastructure and the purporseful bankrupting of large business enterprises brought the end all the swifter. As for the successes of the reforms they were temporary because the assumption they were made on was flawed: that is, demand and consumerism could be significantly increased because there was a lot of unutilised supply. This proved to be false and the response, to print more money to raise wages to create more demand, is what created the hyperinflation.

As for the lack of food this was more caused by an alteration in the already planned land reform to include smaller farms for division created a small civil war which essentially brought supply to a halt.

CaiWengi is kinda right, the ideal form of government is Democratic Socialism. However, I'm no democratic socialist. I don't see it ever becoming a reality anytime soon, but fundamentally it would be the best government for everyone. Good for the people (democracy, freedom, equality), and potentially good for the nation. Problem is, it's unrealistic. Everything is subjective. Depends where the system of government is established, when, how strong the nation was before the government was implemented. Too many x factors to call a single best form of government. Of course, in ideal circumstances, democratic socialism takes the cake, but when are there ever ideal circumstances?

Democratic socialism is not what he posited: 'twas communism and communism is based on two flawed assumptions: people and the state. Firstly it assumes people are willng to give up power and share but in reality all that is engendered is totalitarianism, a flourishing black market and even more rigidly defined social mobility than before. The second assumption is that the state can better run markets than businesses but in reality it creates massive inefficiency, mindless beaurocracy, corruption and poor-quality products coupled with a market tailored not to consumer needs or wants but state mandates. Democratic socialism is based largely on the same assumptions but with an illusion of choice; it is a devious misnomer and one that would have Marx himself spinning in his grave.

In a fantasy world where there's no taint and humanity is innately benign?

Either Anarcho-capitalism(not a government) with a laissez-faire market place that unites people through mutual trade.

Or A benevolent dictatorship where the leader makes infallible decisions without the suffocation of all a democracy or republics political system.

We; however, do not live in a perfect world. I believe the democratic republicanism a lot of western nations have going is a staple for the time being.

Benevolent Dictatorship.

Federalism is the best form of government.

This is a stupid question.

There is no universal "best" form of government. It all depends on who it's best for.

At 9/8/08 03:03 AM, n64kid wrote: A representative, but not a direct representitave, democratic-republic based on Judaeo-Christian values.

I Win.

Judeo-Christian values suck balls. Otherwhise I agree, I would rather live in a democratic republic (or a parlimentiary republic) then anything else.

I think people are mixing ideology with goverment form/system here.
Socialism is a ideology
Parliament is a goverment form.

I'd say Parliamentary republic with a non-executive President (ceremonial).
-Normally has several parties and opinions, therefore also more freedom to choose.
-Widely used by democratic countries.
-More "down to earth" thinking.

Depends on who do you want getting screwed in the end.

All governments end up screwing a section of its population, so who do you want to be screwed? That's the question.

At 9/10/08 08:53 PM, NickDaPwner wrote: Communism

not the fucked up kind that russia had but a good uncorrupted kind

All communism is fucked and is nothing more than a system for insects and rodents.......not men.

It all depends on the geopolitics of the state, honestly. Smaller countries may not be able to get away with all the stuff the United States pulls off every day.

As a general rule for a practical world, I choose a Republic.

Communism is great if it were achievable.

At 9/11/08 04:41 PM, NickDaPwner wrote:

At 9/10/08 09:05 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 9/10/08 08:53 PM, NickDaPwner wrote: Communism

not the fucked up kind that russia had but a good uncorrupted kind

All communism is fucked and is nothing more than a system for insects and rodents.......not men.

you obviosly don't know what communism is apart from what your mommy and daddy tell you

Oh shit. From what mommy and daddy told me? Haven't heard that before. You're truly a smart, clever, and original individual.

I'm afraid I know all too much about the scourge of communism. It's truly a cancer of the human race.