Thread: What is the Best Form of Government?

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

It's common knowledge (in intelligent circles) that women, by biological nature, are nesters, and according to research, prefer security over freedom by a margin of 6 to 4 in the general population, and by a greater margin when dysfunction is minimal in the sample group.

On the other hand, men, by biological nature, are hunters, and according to the same research, prefer freedom over security by about the same margin, and again by a greater margin when dysfunction is minimal in the sample group.

The move toward civilization parallels the steady increase in power-influence of women.

Civilization carries with it the attendant presence of government.

So, as our women rise from covert involvement (behind every good man is a good woman ... pushing hard ) to become more overtly involved (damn PC "feminazis"! ) in politics, they will continue to foster U.N. civilized dominance over uncivilized barbaric male-type practices like genocide and oil heist invasions and such ... and in a democracy, where the majority rules, those ever decreasing number of "masculinized" women who would disagree with their healthier majority sisters will simply lose in the "vote".

Now, although there are some nest safety upsides to the spread of world government, there are some freedom of action downsides to it as well, as I imagine you are in "touch" with.

Thus freedom of action, an arena championed historically by men, will experience restriction as the complement of security of person (from the female perspective) will expand.

That's reality, WOI.

There are more women in the country (and on the planet too?) than men, and they are asserting their numbers in a less barbaric (than men) and a more feminely civilized manner.

So you have only women to blame for your hated growth of government, women and the minority of "feminized" men.

First og all: Behind every good man is a surprised mother-in-law.

Second: There are more men than women actually. In the world that is, and it has it's reason. From a bio point of view women are to choose the strongest male they can get to fertilize them, so that they're own children will have a bigger chance of surviving. Some, (even animals) choose to have a weaker father, but one that sticks around taking care for the children. There are even women that cheats on their partner, even in the animal world.


As an anarchist I don't think government is an evil just like that, but it's not "right" or "good". I think lots of people have the idea that government is grounded in wisdom. I've learned that this isn't true, government has no such thing as a inherited wisdom. It is only a system of control.

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

Is that what government does, "rule" people?

If so, are there "rules" that government utilizes that are wrong? Are there some that are right?

It does rule them. It is a system of control, a system to keep things together. Look at the middle east, or europe during ww's. Governments did all of it, all the common man did was to watch. They were told it was neccasery and all that rubbish.

AFAIK there's no way to not belong to any country.

Nationalism is the biggest threat we have today. It is what really needs to be wiped off the map. It is to compete with other nations in money and power, which means people will die. You're either american, norwegian, angolan, turkish, chinese etc. Thus, as a norwegian, I "belong" to the norwegian state. They can punish me etc.

As to our government, it is not really that much we can control it. We can only decide who is to rule us, not how they will rule us.

Are people who "don't need someone to rule them" naturally respective of the life, security and freedom rights of others ... or are these people just "allergic" to "rules" in general?

Those who doesn't need anyone to rule them are people like me, people that doesn't need anyone to tell them what's right and wrong. People who doesn't know what right and wrong is, need a government. But why can't the first group get a piece of land to live in?

What about government of, by and for "the people" -- shouldn't that include everyone, and doesn't that mean the "rules" will be fair to all?

The thing is representative democracy is a piece of shit. You vote for parties, and none will stand for all of your point of views.

Some form of constitutional democracy makes the most sense to me and it is the form with which I agree.

Such a democracy, or any form of limited government, has one huge dilemma, however--how to draw the "limits"? Our Const and Declaration in the US uses a concept of fundamental or unalienable rights. The existence of this concept begs the question of what is the origin of these rights and what makes them unalienable.

The answer to these questions is crucial, as you either have a limited government or the majority may do whatever it wants and these fundamental rights are not really fundamental. As we struggle with the role of our government post-9/11, this question becomes more salient all the time. Indeed, should we honor our "fundamental" rights even if to do so means our country gets overrun and destroyed?

Interesting dilemma.

Originally Posted by Rotten

First og all: Behind every good man is a surprised mother-in-law.

Originally Posted by Rotten

First og all: Behind every good man is a surprised mother-in-law.

Second: There are more men than women actually. In the world that is,

According to this web site, you are right -- in its 2003 estimate, there are 3,169,122,000 men in the world and 3,132,342,000 women in the world.

In the U.S., women still do outnumber men.

In a number of Arabian countries, men far outnumber women.

I can't help but wonder if there are some places in the world where it is safer to be a woman than in other places.

Originally Posted by Rotten

and it has it's reason.

I was surprised to find that in China, where girl babies are reportedly frequently aborted simply because they are girls, that the ratio of men to women in this chart presents that there are only 106 men for every 100 women. I would have expected the number of men to be higher ... though with 1.3 billion people in china, there still could be a significant amount of female baby genocide occuring.

Korimyr, we're on the bottom of page 7.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Korimyr, we're on the bottom of page 7.

I'll get back to you apace. Things ran foul on my vacation and I am only now returning home.

Originally Posted by quick

Some form of constitutional democracy makes the most sense to me and it is the form with which I agree.

Such a democracy, or any form of limited government, has one huge dilemma, however--how to draw the "limits"? Our Const and Declaration in the US uses a concept of fundamental or unalienable rights. The existence of this concept begs the question of what is the origin of these rights and what makes them unalienable.

The answer to these questions is crucial, as you either have a limited government or the majority may do whatever it wants and these fundamental rights are not really fundamental. As we struggle with the role of our government post-9/11, this question becomes more salient all the time. Indeed, should we honor our "fundamental" rights even if to do so means our country gets overrun and destroyed?

Interesting dilemma.

Clear, concise and factual. Impressive post. An oddity in the democratic context of a democratic forum. Democratic people are more used to concealing their own shortcomings in order to sell their democratic goverment as the best form of govermnent.

Another question could that " is a government which can not justified itself straightly and positively suitable to be elected as the best form of government ever?"

Should the best form of government imply unfounded structures or are founded structures absolutely needed to warrant perennity of the government?

Originally Posted by quick

Some form of constitutional democracy makes the most sense to me and it is the form with which I agree.

Such a democracy, or any form of limited government, has one huge dilemma, however--how to draw the "limits"? Our Const and Declaration in the US uses a concept of fundamental or unalienable rights. The existence of this concept begs the question of what is the origin of these rights and what makes them unalienable.

The answer to these questions is crucial, as you either have a limited government or the majority may do whatever it wants and these fundamental rights are not really fundamental. As we struggle with the role of our government post-9/11, this question becomes more salient all the time. Indeed, should we honor our "fundamental" rights even if to do so means our country gets overrun and destroyed?

Interesting dilemma.

Our human rights do indeed exist, and as I presented in the thread "The Realities of Rights".

We should always honor those rights.

If, as you irrationally fear, that we honor those rights and "by doing so", in effect, our country gets "overrun and destroyed", then that is a natural occurring event that is rightly appropriate, and though we would be saddened by the loss of our country, we nevertheless would have done the right thing by respecting the rights of all, and whatever rises phoenix-like from the ashes of what once was a rights-disrespecting nation to become a new rights-respecting nation will be greatly preferable to what we previously had.

But, there is still time to prevent the "overrun and destruction" of our nation.

All we need to do is agree to recognize and respect the human rights of all.

That will force some major change in our country without any "overrun and destruction" ... change that will make our people safer and freer and our country, thereby, a whole lot stronger.

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

Our human rights do indeed exist, and as I presented in the thread "The Realities of Rights".

We should always honor those rights.

If, as you irrationally fear, that we honor those rights and "by doing so", in effect, our country gets "overrun and destroyed", then that is a natural occurring event that is rightly appropriate, and though we would be saddened by the loss of our country, we nevertheless would have done the right thing by respecting the rights of all, and whatever rises phoenix-like from the ashes of what once was a rights-disrespecting nation to become a new rights-respecting nation will be greatly preferable to what we previously had.

But, there is still time to prevent the "overrun and destruction" of our nation.

All we need to do is agree to recognize and respect the human rights of all.

That will force some major change in our country without any "overrun and destruction" ... change that will make our people safer and freer and our country, thereby, a whole lot stronger.

Looking at the history of democratic countries, it does seem they thrived through respect of democratic human rights. One could tell the oppositive with more exactitude and democratic countries are for the most far from going extinct.