Democracy, Communism, Republic, Tribalism, Anarchy, Capitalism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Regional or Local, Totalitarian, or Transitional you decide or better yet rate each one.

I must say, and call me crazy, but I particularly enjoy democracy.

Some of the systems you listed are philosophies, not exactly a specific form of government. Economically wise: anyone with half a brain knows capitalism is the best. The best form of government would be a benevolent dictator, but there's no such thing.

If anyone has ever read 1984 they were so close to being perfect.

At 12/1/06 07:51 PM, BanditByte wrote: Economically wise: anyone with half a brain knows capitalism is the best.

That depends on what you are looking for.

At 12/1/06 07:53 PM, bigkahuna2020 wrote: If anyone has ever read 1984 they were so close to being perfect.

Big Brother = doubleplusgood

There is no way to balance populus with leader with control one is always commanding

At 12/1/06 08:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/1/06 08:00 PM, Tancrisism wrote: That depends on what you are looking for.

Yes if you're looking for economic freedom and equal opportunity/responsibility then you know capitalism is the best.

If you want your countries economy to be controlled by a powerful government then you choose socialism.

Right. There are positive and negative aspects to both. I must say that I prefer capitalism to socialism any day, but I could understand why some would pick socialism.

At 12/1/06 07:45 PM, bigkahuna2020 wrote: Democracy, Communism, Republic, Tribalism, Anarchy, Capitalism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Regional or Local, Totalitarian, or Transitional you decide or better yet rate each one.

You forgot Feudalism and Oligarchy, along with a host of others. And few on your list go together. For one, America is a Democratic Republic.

I tend to be a big fan of capitalism, but none of that no obstruction from the government bullshit. A democratic republic works great, because it subsidizes control from the common people and makes them think like they actually have a say in government.

At 12/2/06 12:30 AM, Jose wrote:

At 12/1/06 07:45 PM, bigkahuna2020 wrote: Democracy, Communism, Republic, Tribalism, Anarchy, Capitalism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Regional or Local, Totalitarian, or Transitional you decide or better yet rate each one.

You forgot Feudalism and Oligarchy, along with a host of others. And few on your list go together. For one, America is a Democratic Republic.

I tend to be a big fan of capitalism, but none of that no obstruction from the government bullshit. A democratic republic works great, because it subsidizes control from the common people and makes them think like they actually have a say in government.

America isn't a democratic republic it's a constitutional republic. When people say democratic they usually mean free elections and civil liberties etc but a truly democratic system is unlimited majority rule unrestricted by the rule of law. This is why the American founding fathers severely criticised democracy and were strongly for a republican system of government.

That's my ideal form of government by the way: a constitutional republic with a laissez-faire economy.

At 12/1/06 07:45 PM, bigkahuna2020 wrote: Democracy, Communism, Republic, Tribalism, Anarchy, Capitalism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Regional or Local, Totalitarian, or Transitional you decide or better yet rate each one.

Wow, you're mixing together government systems, economic systems, and social systems, most of which can exist happily side-by-side; constitutional monarchy is a fun example, though granted in most cases today the monarch has no real power. And you're not even mentioning Feudalism, Socialism, Patriarchy, Matriarchy, Theocracy, Fundamentalism, and countless others.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your thread sucks. But aside from that? I myself find Social-Democracy most appealing.

It depends on how wealthy a country is, here in Holland, we do fine with Democracy, (although many dumb VMBO'ers have great potential in fucking it up).
We arranged things pretty well around here, so we only need to bitch about the small things.

But in less-wealthy countries, aristocracy does better, but only if all the interlectuals are included. Since they are the most capable and most educated. If you get democracy 'round there, people are easily corupted by small talk etc.

America isn't a democratic republic it's a constitutional republic. When people say democratic they usually mean free elections and civil liberties etc but a truly democratic system is unlimited majority rule unrestricted by the rule of law.

No, that's a majoritarian system. A democracy is where minority rights are guaranteed.

As for the system idea....it's fairly stupid as you're mixing systems of government (democracy) with economic systems (communism).

I think that a communism would be the best.
If you could find honest "good" people to rule the government it would probably be the best.

verlicht despoot translated enlightened despot, a dictator who is good in its hart, and who has the best intentions for the people.

At 12/2/06 04:36 AM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: It depends on how wealthy a country is, here in Holland, we do fine with Democracy, (although many dumb VMBO'ers have great potential in fucking it up).
We arranged things pretty well around here, so we only need to bitch about the small things.

But in less-wealthy countries, aristocracy does better, but only if all the interlectuals are included. Since they are the most capable and most educated. If you get democracy 'round there, people are easily corupted by small talk etc.

But the type of government a country has determines how wealthy it gets to be. The United States wouldn't be as wealthy if it had a Nazi or Soviet style government. In most African countries where resources are plentiful the oppressive government stifles freedom, production and creative thought.

Dictatorship of course.

Too bad that would only work if you found the right person to rule it.

At 12/2/06 10:37 AM, Flashfire wrote:
But the type of government a country has determines how wealthy it gets to be. The United States wouldn't be as wealthy if it had a Nazi or Soviet style government. In most African countries where resources are plentiful the oppressive government stifles freedom, production and creative thought.

Yes, but that is because they are opressive, if it is a aristocracy supported by the people, it works. And there are many african democracies that don't bring them wealth.

At 12/2/06 11:26 AM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: Yes, but that is because they are opressive, if it is a aristocracy supported by the people, it works. And there are many african democracies that don't bring them wealth.

Since when can communist regimes be considered dictatorships?

At 12/2/06 11:26 AM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote:

At 12/2/06 10:37 AM, Flashfire wrote:
But the type of government a country has determines how wealthy it gets to be. The United States wouldn't be as wealthy if it had a Nazi or Soviet style government. In most African countries where resources are plentiful the oppressive government stifles freedom, production and creative thought.

Yes, but that is because they are opressive, if it is a aristocracy supported by the people, it works. And there are many african democracies that don't bring them wealth.

A democracy can violate human (individual) rights just as easily as a dictatorship and they're often given moral sanction just because they are elected. An aristocracy which respected human rights would be better than a democracy which didn't,but people with economic and civil liberty tend to demand political freedom sooner or later. The aristocrats could ban freedom of speech and freedom of the press to try and stop this but then that wouldn't be a good form of government.

I know the best form of Government. where there isnt one

At 12/2/06 02:21 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: I know the best form of Government. where there isnt one

When/If anarchy ever hits, I'm going to personally steal all your things and neuter you so your 'whiny anarchist bitch' gene won't spread

Democratic Socialism!

And I don't care what you think!

At 12/2/06 03:06 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 12/2/06 02:21 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: I know the best form of Government. where there isnt one

When/If anarchy ever hits, I'm going to personally steal all your things and neuter you so your 'whiny anarchist bitch' gene won't spread

try it mutherfucker and ill brake your legs.

At 12/2/06 08:37 AM, duckiesrock wrote: I think that a communism would be the best.
If you could find honest "good" people to rule the government it would probably be the best.

Nobody cares, Mr 88 posts.

At 12/2/06 03:42 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

try it mutherfucker and ill brake your legs.

I'll join him, you can't break all our legs.

At 12/2/06 03:47 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

At 12/2/06 03:42 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

try it mutherfucker and ill brake your legs.

I'll join him, you can't break all our legs.

You wouldnt be the first man ive swung a sledge hammer at

At 12/2/06 11:26 AM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote:

At 12/2/06 10:37 AM, Flashfire wrote:
But the type of government a country has determines how wealthy it gets to be. The United States wouldn't be as wealthy if it had a Nazi or Soviet style government. In most African countries where resources are plentiful the oppressive government stifles freedom, production and creative thought.

Yes, but that is because they are opressive, if it is a aristocracy supported by the people, it works. And there are many african democracies that don't bring them wealth.

the nazis improved germany's economy. and the soviet union collapsed because their economy went to hell after they tried to support the communist regime in afghanistan. the reason the U.S. came out of WWI and WWII in such good shape was a mixture of location and timing. we didn't enter WWI until pretty late into it, and there was no way for the central powers to carry out an attack on the united states. in WWII we were attacked by the japanese, but we were caught off guard expecting them to attack somewhere in southeast asia after we stopped shipping to them. plus they were a naval superpower, and the coasts of the u.s. are too large to blockade, and even if you managed to do so, you'd just be wasting resources since there isn't really anything you could stop the americans from getting. also, the U.S. had (and probably still has. easy enough to convert your car factories to whip out tanks and planes) industrial capabilities greater than the rest of the world combined, and our cities and industrial centers aren't centralized, so there isn't a way to easily paralyze the country. that's one of the things that won the revolutionary war

At 12/2/06 03:48 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/2/06 03:47 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

At 12/2/06 03:42 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

try it mutherfucker and ill brake your legs.

I'll join him, you can't break all our legs.

You wouldnt be the first man ive swung a sledge hammer at

I'd have some hired mercenaries to take you and other people's stuff.

At 12/2/06 04:00 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

I'd have some hired mercenaries to take you and other people's stuff.

Good luck in finding me. Throws lap top over a bridge into the water.

Social Democracy.