Thread: What is the Best Form of Government?

Originally Posted by joeblow

I believe government on such a large scale as the USA should be greatly reduced in power. In fact, I believe states should have less power. I feel that counties should rule themselves however they wish. This could lead to better economical competition and allow people a better freedom of choice.

I think the main problem is that too much is spent on the wrong things. The last stat I read was that 47% of what all nations spend on defense is spent by the U.S. Japan was in second with like 5%. We could reduce total spending while still increasing what we spend on things like education if we just worried about protecting our nations borders instead of using the military for economic gain and increased power around the world.

Originally Posted by partofme

I think the main problem is that too much is spent on the wrong things. The last stat I read was that 47% of what all nations spend on defense is spent by the U.S.

The US military is also the single largest employer in the nation, and all those weapons and planes are built by American companies which in turn provide jobs, spawn industries beneficial to civillians etc. Whole towns exist around military stuff. Some of our great innovations like this here InterNet were developed by the US Military. It is argued that military spending does benefit the economy and community.

But I agree, the numbers are staggering, no matter how you look at them.

And we should spend more on education but that is a state, county and school district thing.

And rich school districts do spend a lot on their schools. It's the poor ones who want us all to share, of course they do. And it's the poor neighborhoods whose kids drop out at higher rates. There lies a reason for representative democracy. Different people have different ideas.

And what exactly is so expensive about pencils, papers, books and chalkboards. Are we supposed to throw money at kids to entice them to do their homework? Back in my day you read the book and you did the work or you didn't go further.

Originally Posted by Jihad4Peace

Sure but, don't too many people measure their prosperity by their material advantage over the general community they live in?

That's the advantage-- noone is capable of gaining a material advantage. Sure, they might want more, but there's no way to have more without everyone else gaining more. And when you can't have more than anyone else, you start to settle just for what you can use; no point in conspicuous consumption when you can't outdo your neighbors.

Then, of course... that competitive instinct might be channeled into more productive endeavors. If I can't make more money than the Joneses or show off a flashier car, maybe I can cure more diseases than Mr. Jones, or write more lines of code than Mrs. Jones-- or maybe, in a less productive manner, I'll try to compete simply by displaying better taste and aesthetic flair.

Originally Posted by Jihad4Peace

I do agree that the more crap people have, the less people will want to steal other peoples' crap. But people will always steal just for the rush or greed of it.

Yeah, but that's the other beautiful thing; if everyone's getting everything they need, and we only keep track of energy credits so we know how much to produce... who cares if someone takes a five-finger discount on a pair of designer mittens?

Whoever's in charge of the distribution center will notice it when he takes inventory, and the "thief" wouldn't even have managed to throw off the accounting numbers.

Of course, if there's enough of this behavior, the accounting will become erratic, and someone will have to respond-- but even then, you're looking at a simple behavioral/medical problem. The "theft" isn't raising prices for everyone else, hurting the business "owner", or even making people who'd come by their designer mittens honestly resent their hard work in "earning" them.

Originally Posted by Jihad4Peace

It's actually insane how much American retail stores lose merchandise to people who didn't need what ever crap they took. And then there is the employees. And the stores just mark the prices up to cover the losses and the honest, hard working people pay for it all. That's the world we live in.

I've seen the numbers, and I absolutely agree that it's insane. It's insane from every possible perspective-- and there's just no excuse for it. That's the world we live in, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Originally Posted by Jihad4Peace

If there was a better system, we would see it in action. People just complain a lot.

I hate this line of reasoning with a passion. Remember, our current system exists because someone thought it was a better system than what we originally had-- and did something about it. The best system to-date isn't necessarily the best system possible.

And yeah, I complain a lot. I complain because, not only are things not going as well as they good, a whole lot of things across the whole, wide world, are going wrong when they don't have to. I wish more people would complain about it, instead of just accepting it as "the way things have always been".

Of course, I also wish more people would do something about it.

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

I hate this line of reasoning with a passion. Remember, our current system exists because someone thought it was a better system than what we originally had-- and did something about it. The best system to-date isn't necessarily the best system possible..

But the current system is the best system that is applicable to the real world. And there lies the difference. Communism is a great theory, but it just does not work in practice. And the Soviets had to force the people to go along with it. And this technocracy you speak of sounds like it might work in the far off future, but not today.

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

And yeah, I complain a lot. I complain because, not only are things not going as well as they good, a whole lot of things across the whole, wide world, are going wrong when they don't have to. I wish more people would complain about it, instead of just accepting it as "the way things have always been"...

Most people realize the world is not perfect. But maybe they got tired of complaining and decided to focus on the positives. Life is short.

I firmly believe that if every nation was a free capitalist democracy that encouraged education, personal responsibility and hard work like the USA, the world would not have such problems.

But people defend dictators as sovereign leaders and backwards, uneducated societies as culturally diverse so......

And the 3rd world nations can be very insecure and take great offense at practical suggestions or attempts to help them improve. And they can often be real assholes about it.

How many Arabs are rejecting democracy in favor of their Totalitarian Monarchs who deny them rights and priviliges, simply becuase they equate democracy with evil old America.

How many 3rd world nations angrily criticize the AID given to them as not enough?

There are a lot of rebels with out a clue in this world and then there are the rebels with a hidden agenda.

And Ironically, the successful rebels often become the establishment which they tried to break free from.

Look at George Lucas or Metallica as media examples.

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

Of course, I also wish more people would do something about it.

The basic premise of American Foreign Policy is to defend and promote democracy. And look how hated America is for its foreign policy. Of course one can argue against the forceful methods employed.

Look at how the so called Freedom Fighters in Iraq kidnapp and behead AID Workers and Peace activists. Those well intentioned people got brutally murdered for "doing something about it".

Apparently some people think the best form of Govt is a strict interpretation of the Koran and they will kill for it. I guess America is not alone in it's use of force to change govts.

I say there is no "best" form of government. "Best" is a highly subjective term rooted in the preferences of individuals. The totalitarian form is the best form of government for the dictator. The democratic form is the best form of government for the majority. However, these governments suck for the subjects and the minorities, respectivey. The very modus operandi of government is to make things better for one group at the expense of another.

The choice is clear; we can either play the zero-sum game of politics or the positive-sum game of economics.

Originally Posted by JSMILL

Are you suggesting that an unchecked democracy is the ultimate from of government?

Where'd the word "unchecked" come from? Your bias betrays your question.

I am saying "democracy" is the ultimate form of government. Checked, or unchecked, that is just semantics.

Originally Posted by JSMILL

The will of the people at any given time is the law of the nation? The law will mutate according to the whims of the majority?

That's about the gist of it.

Originally Posted by JSMILL

To what extent can the government interfere in the lives of the citizens?

That would depend upon the will of the majority now wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by JSMILL

Is this a utopian libertarian democracy you propose? A socialist democracy where the government regulates the people according to the present will of the people? Can the majority limit the franchise to enure their majority? Are there allowances for regional differences and disparity?

I haven't a clue to any of this. And besides, my opinion on those questions is irrelevant in the face of the will of a majority otherwise.

I guess it comes down to human nature. If you believe that we are (or ought to be) considered guilty sinners by nature, then I suppose this kind of system is madness. But if you believe that humans are generally decent and wanting to what's right, and make the concept of citizenship real, then democracy ought to be the way to go.

Originally Posted by JSMILL

On average, I believe a constitutional monarchy would be the best form of government. This does not exclude the concept of meritocracy, except as to the emodiment of the sovereignty.

I'm no fan of constitutions. Any study of history will show that 99% of them have been ignored, broken, ammended or perverted with remarkable facility. They are ultimately legislative acts like any other.

Short of true democracy, I'm partial to the British model of a Monarchy with only a theoretical constitutional basis. The actual constitution of Britain is unwritten and I like that best as it is most flexible.

Originally Posted by JSMILL

In todays world, with the power of government being what it is, a pure democracy would be one of the worst.

Absolutely.

Our present governments stand as entities independent of the citizenry or the nation. They have their own aims and their own interests as 'governments' rather than expressing the interest of the people that they only pretend to represent. The principle of true democracy holds no need for any standing government institution. If one be deemed necessary, the use of true democracy (choosing by lot from the citizenry) in staffing the higher offices ought to be sufficient.

If government is considered to be too complex for ordinary people, we are already doomed to some technocratic fascism.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Theoretically, I would say a benevolent dictatorship. If we assume that the most capable possible person were selected for the job and that said person would act only in the net best interest of society.

Scratch a conservative, and there is always Plato staring back at you!

Good doctor, the instant that the 'best person' is empowered or annointed, they are no longer the 'best person' for the job. Ergo, the principle of benevolent dictatorship predicated on the benefit of the governed is logically flawed.

Originally Posted by drgooddictator

To expand, consider problems that would not exist. Democracy is plagued by the stupidity of the average man, among other things.

The stupidity of the human race has got us this far from swinging in trees...

Originally Posted by drgooddictator

Any elected government will also give rise to politics and political machinations where personal ambition may supercede the duties of the position.

No. Officers of State ought to be chosen by lot. Certainly there is danger of demagogues standing as leaders of the demos, but that is inherent to any human enterprise and must not stand as an objection because of that fact. To be human is to err.

Originally Posted by drgooddictator

The negative aspects of a dictatorship (power corrupting, madness, widespread oppression et. al) would not exist, since we have, in theory put the perfect guy in charge.

No. See above argument.

Originally Posted by doniston

You see, that is the problem with true democracy. There can be NO bosses. Otherwise, it is not "True" democracy

Absolutely - I've never asserted any need for 'bosses'. That's why State Officials ought to be chosen by lot in a true democracy. Chosing by lot is democratic - all are equal.

Originally Posted by doniston

The only true democracy is found in the lives of certain insects such as bees, because the bee is raised to perform a particular function. and apparently has genetic information that guides it's actions. It knows, without being told, what it should do.

I've addressed this argument previously. To predicate any human endeavour upon a model of biologically determination is a travesty.

There is nothing democratic about biological specialisation within a given species - such as your bee example. I will not countenance eugenics as a model of democracy.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

At the risk of appearing 'Trite' to MM , i would say my ideal form of government is one in which the individual in society no longer needs to be governed.

Indeed, it is trite for the reason's I've already given.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Other than that i would say a true democracy in the midterm will suit me fine. Right now we live in a plutocracy, wealth is the only driving force of our governments.

Actually, I think our present form of government is more of the character of an oligarchy than a true plutocracy.

I suppose that doesn't say much either...

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

The choice of a government implies many other choices. An economic system that matches or follows from the political choice needs to be considered. Neither is religion indepent of it.

Implies? The choice of government is the economic system.

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Likewise : Buddhism and capitalism are incompatible.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Also:
There is little sense in referring to history in this choice. Choosing the best government is likely to give an idealist or utopian answer, whatever the nature of it. And throughout history, only aberrations of ideals have been implemented.

Good point. Precisely why I'm interested in advancing the true democracy position. It may never be realised, but moving towards it would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

So are we looking for an ideal or the best thing possible in the current settings ?

Yes, that is the question most relevant to this thread. I should like to note that many of our 'current settings' are entirely predicated upon our current model - change the model and some of those 'current settings' go out the window.

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Do we take into account 6 billion people, global corporate power which exceeds that of any nation, technology that might better millions of lifes, but may equally destroy all of it, mass media induced stupor in millions, if not billions, terrible pollution and destruction of the natural environment,... or do we get to play deity and have full power of the conditions in which to build our preferred government ?

In the latter case, I would choose anarchism anytime. No formal government of any kind, no formal contracts between people, and especially no representation, which I consider the source of power, and I consider power as synonymous to abuse of power.

Why no democracy :

'Democracy' is a notion so much misused and abused that it no longer has any meaning. Take any four countries that are said to be democracies : I'll take France, Belgium, Iceland and the USA.

Do these countries have the same political system ? Nope.
Only one, Iceland, approaches, in its domestic affairs, a true democracy. This is possible because it's quite isolated and has less than 300000 inhabitants. Its foreign policy however is simple :just make sure the USA likes us (give them a naval base, we support the Iraq invasion, ...), so we can keep doing our own business at home.

Belgium does not have a system that is corrupt, it has corruption as a system (I know, I live there ) and a despicable, parasitical monarchy.

France and the USA had and have empire-delusions. They are capitalized States. That kind has only the interests of the State in mind, the State being a small subset of the nation, hence implicitly undemocratic.

So if you choose democracy, please elaborate and make sure it's not democrazy

You missed the only world example of the closest to being a true democracy - Switzerland.

As noted previously, none of the examples you give are democratic, so I don't see how they can be used as examples against democratic theory - other than perhaps as 'proof' that democracy doesn't work (only an argument - I'll argue against).