Your ideal system of Government

[Mirai]

I know this idea has been done before, but it's been a while, and people's opinions might have changed, just like mine. I'd like like to see how everyone thinks on a political spectrum..

Due to historical evidence, it has been proven that large countries, although powerful, will collapse and implode over the test of time. The Romans, Mongolians, and English are examples of this.

In order to remedy this situation, the nations should be broken up into smaller provinces and the full control of that province would be given to a democratically elected govenor. Each province would be fully in control of what happens inside it, basically, The province would be a nation, and the govenor the leader. The Federal government would exist, but would not be allowed to keep a military, and would only be used to secure trade deals, patrol international borders, and maintain inter-province commerce. All other affairs of state would fall to the province in question.

The President would be a mere figurehead. An 'international' ambassador, so to say.

A Democratic/Libertarian View.

By Mirai

[Nodrog]

Given that "ideal" implies that it doesnt have to be practical, probably anarcho-capitalism.

[Dr Wakka]

No government is a good government.

In other words, here's yet another happy little anarchist - well, anarcho-socialist to be both obscure and accurate at the same time. Welcome to the vast world of funny sounding ideologies!

to Mirai - that's what I call a nice utopian ideal!

[W]

Ideal for me with the rest of humanity around, or ideal for a world of people like me?

[Dante Hicks]

• No State
• No Nation(s)
• No Private Property / Intellectual Property
• Social distribution of necessities through a local community fund voluntarily contributed by individuals.
• Tenancies held between local community and individuals for housing / businesses / individual needs.
• Less emphasis on increased material wealth for individuals, more emphasis.
• No compulsary education / social rearing of children to an extent to relieve pressure from individual parents.
• Emphasis on reducing the "unpleasant" labour via technological and social changes.

Anarchism / Socialist-Libertarian / Communism

[queball]

Originally posted by Mirai

Agreed, roughly. Independent city-states, hopefully based on anarchist and capitalist principles. With any agreements you like between them - there would probably be international or at least continental trade agreements rather than a federal state.

[Dante Hicks]

Excluding W (who didn't give an answer yet) everyone in this thread thus far has supported a form of anarchism.

Of course, MM will be here soon to claim that we already have the ideal system of government and some authotarians will ramble on about respecting the government and asylum seekers being shot, but a good start so far.

[queball]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Given that "ideal" implies that it doesnt have to be practical, probably anarcho-capitalism.

Something impractical is hardly ideal. Though for a techno-utopian dream, I envisage a world of individuals each with their rights represented by their computer. All the computers are networked. They automatically determine prices and dynamically configure laws to allow people to create arbitrary social systems in meatspace, including mandating social problems such as Justice, to be tackled by entrepreneurs.

[KaneED]

GET RID OF THOSE ****ING POWER-SEEKING TWATS.

[Deffeh]

i honestly dont think i know enough to say. its something i have to give thought to i suppose.

Perhaps i could be used as litmus paper here, you can all try and convince me one way or the other.

[Kurashima]

Ill take a central autocracy which tells its people what to do, and has the peoples interests at heart, not the individuals.

Communism with a capitalist heart in order to improve that which the nation needs.If possible , mix in some environmental methods which guarantee the health and future of the nation in a longer term.

Strong Education & Health Systems.
Big Brother style Anti-Crime systems (Barcoding or ID Cards)
A Strong Environment which promotes tourism instead of industry.
Limited Social Freedoms
Little/No Political Freedoms

[JonnyBGood]

A society in which each individual is made aware of the fact that if they do not co-operate society will collapse, and a society where everyone willingly works together without coercion based on the ideals of liberty (the freedom to do what we want as long as it does not impinge directly on others) and justice (from each according to xxxx, to each according to xxxx).








PS Hey someone, forgot the word for a religion dominated state/government. Anyone remember what it is? (Ta SS, all those exams have finally served to actually decrease my vocabulary! C'est incroyable monsieur.)

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
PS Hey someone, forgot the word for a religion dominated state/government. Anyone remember what it is?

theocracy

[Aquario]

Ideal form of Gov't. mmm.

1- Provision of Free basic things for people ie, health schooling water etc.

2- No Trade Barriers

3- Centrally Planned World Gov't- 1 Ambassador from each coutry. Basically to enforce world Peace distribution of Healthcare etc.

4- Each country not having a donation of some sort of % of GNP to the world fund to help pooer nations develop.

[Tactitus]

My ideal system of government would be as little as possible. My ideal economic system would be capitalism.

[G_frog]

I'm all in favour of a large* (if not neccesarily centralised) representative democratic government, on the understanding that certain long term, large scale or universally required projects or services are better undertaken by such agencies.

Economics should obviously be capitalist, but conversely not laissez-faire. Specifically, while taxation should be more heavily on individuals than business, labour contracts can be regulated.

The seperation of the legislative and executive arms of government should be substantial but not total, mainly linked by the ability of the legislature to hold the executive to account. the judiciary should be as seperate as possible from either, and NOT ultimately answerable in its judgements to any (impermanent) elected body.

Measures should be introduced to seperate state from both church and business. Individual politicians would be subject to very strict conflict of interest rules.

Foreign affairs would be the only area (that I can think of at the moment) where secrecy would be considered acceptable.

A bill of citizen's rights would be required if no large pre-existing body of law were available.

*though obviously as small as possible.



...

These measures are suggested on the basis of having to establish a state from scratch. A number of these measures would be not only unneccesary but destructive in various states if forcibly formally introduced.

[Anarchy]

boy you dont know what youre in for by asking this question


contrary to my nickname (yeah i was once an anarchist but my theory on government rather evolved on my own until it resembeled communism, known as *marxism* in its idealized form)....

I think that a popular uprising is necesseciary to change any government...a small group of people has no right to dictate to a whole people, no matter what the intended effect may be.
A dictatorial / absolute ruler is needed for the transition from existing government to the new one, but must be totally committed to the philosophy in every way, so that the government is built CORRECTLY from the ground up.

Once the government is established, the ruler must abolish all claims to power, so that no single person or small group of people control the state. Direct democracy would be instituted, so that the people would vote on ALL laws and actions of the government. A constitution would be written that outlines the basic rights of all people (more or less mirroring that of the UN), and will take precedence over all other things...so to say that the constitution says all people have freedom of speech, no law passed by the people could ever supercede this.

What good does property do a person? Once you die its of no use to you any longer. It never truly BELONGS to you anyway. Nor should the state have any claim to these things; the PUBLIC as a whole should have 'possession' of it, but it will remain in your temporary possession for the duration of its usefulness, thus being of constant use to society. The economy must be one controlled by the government; one example used by the communist party of the United States (of which I am a member) is how expensive medicine is; not simply because of the extremely high insurance rates, but because the companies that manufacture the medical devices sell them for a huge profit, and thus this cost is passed on to the consumer. Under this "communist" government, all people would work, but all would be served. There would be unlimited access to medical facilities, everybody would eat, have a house, etc. This system is constrained, however, by greedy capitalists, who wish to benefit themselves and nobody else. Such a government would need to be fully supported by the people if it is to succeed. It has worked perfectly in small 'communes' that were established in the early 20th century in Europe, but on a grand scale it cannot work, due to corruption and greed which is inherent in people. Perhaps some day we can overcome this?

Well, thats my theory in a nutshell

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Anarchy
I think that a popular uprising is necesseciary to change any government

So if a smal minority doesnt like an elected by the majority government hen you dont have a problem with this uprising thing then ?

THATS HOW NAZI GERMANY WAS STARTED AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THEN !!!

or something

Vaio (toss up between being extremely bored or extremely drunk)

[queball]

Originally posted by Vaio
So if a smal minority doesnt like an elected by the majority government hen you dont have a problem with this uprising thing then ?

Did you even read past that sentence?

THATS HOW NAZI GERMANY WAS STARTED AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THEN !!!

Maybe you're thinking of Communist Russia...

“When I resume active work it will be necessary to pursue a new policy. Instead of working to achieve power by an armed coup we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag against the catholic and Marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own constitution! Any lawful process is slow. But sooner or later we shall have a majority – and after that Germany.”

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Vaio
So if a smal minority doesnt like an elected by the majority government hen you dont have a problem with this uprising thing then ?

Webster's English Dictionary defines popular as a planet of deciduous nature with velvet-green foliage. Even though I hardly agree with what was said the word popular does actually imply "majority", despite any other daft extraneous meanings (some other words should go in here as well but it's 3am and exams are starting to tire me out).






PS Hi anarchy, welcome to GD, (vague muttered references about communists eating babies).





PPS Hitler was let in by Van Poppen's nationalist party as I recall. I don't believe at any point prior to the enabling act did they have even a simple majority in the Reichstag.

[Anarchy]

Well to address that first response about the 'popular uprising' (which, yes, means an uprising supported by a good majority of the people)...

How else would you have it happen? In Nazi Germany it started out with the SA running around killing their enemies...I would want the people to support it so that nobody has to be killed...if they dont like the new policy they can get the **** out

Anyway i been on these forums for several years but cba to come around and read em any more..somebody gave me a link about my galm8's closing so i went back to this board's index and saw this; cant miss an opportunity to spout my philosophy

[bobble]

Daffy Duck is president of the world. The Tiny Toons are the senate.
Peanut butter is the only food anyone can ever eat again.
People can only wear socks, nothing else, but ALWAYS have to wear them.






Ask a ridiculously stupid question, get a similar answer.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by bobble
Daffy Duck is president of the world. The Tiny Toons are the senate.
Peanut butter is the only food anyone can ever eat again.
People can only wear socks, nothing else, but ALWAYS have to wear them.






Ask a ridiculously stupid question, get a similar answer.

Can I take them off to put different ones on?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Anarchy
A dictatorial / absolute ruler is needed for the transition from existing government to the new one, but must be totally committed to the philosophy in every way, so that the government is built CORRECTLY from the ground up.

No.

What's actually needed is basically to institute a socialist ideology in the working class prior/during action to destroy the state (lo Gramsci) and to build an alternative to the state during the same period (lo Mao).

Individuals (or cliques) can't build a "correct" government. This is one of the flaws in some idealist contemporary Bolshevik theory. The problem wasn't that Stalin wasn't committed enough, or that problems stemmed from his unique personal problems. The problem was immature conditions for socialism (no-ones fault particularly - excluding the imperialist countries making the situation immensely worse) which forced a totalitarian beaureaucracy upon the backward Russia. In any contemporary state (with improved infrastructure, communication, transport) there'd be no justification for the same madness.

Popular involvement is the only way to defend socialism, once institituted. Anything which takes power away from the majority and gives to the minority will be de-facto anti-socialist irrespective of the ideological leanings of the minority in question.

[Radical Edward]

I think the entire world being run by one big megacoropration/government with technological advance, panspermia and environmental issues being it's driving forces would be the best. It would also be run by sentient computers.

Stalinist, with myself in the lead role

[Black Dog]

If it were an ideal state I would support Mill's qualitative utilitarianism, on a more practical level Hayek's form of liberalism, but seeing as relying upon metanarratives is about as useful as pissing in the wind, it is impossible to imagine any underlying principle within society to base a government on.

Therefore I suppose I would simply accept Critical Legal Theorist's pragmatism.

[huh]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

• No State
• No Nation(s)
• No Private Property / Intellectual Property
• Social distribution of necessities through a local community fund voluntarily contributed by individuals.
• Tenancies held between local community and individuals for housing / businesses / individual needs.
• Less emphasis on increased material wealth for individuals, more emphasis.
• No compulsary education / social rearing of children to an extent to relieve pressure from individual parents.
• Emphasis on reducing the "unpleasant" labour via technological and social changes.

Anarchism / Socialist-Libertarian / Communism

Greed?

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by huh
Greed?

Don't point out the inabilities of socialism to account for humanisms. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.




With a nuke.

[seventh]

none of you are socialist or marxist or anything similar, or even mildly anti corporate, you are all playing computer games using software made by one of the biggest companies (well nearly all of you) and basically yeh you all make up false ideals to make yourself more interesting.

im not claiming to be any better than you but if you really have these wonderful "no state" and "no one should own anything it should all be shared" go give your belongings to the local church...including your house...

oh...

you're still here...how strange.


meh, the human race should be destroyed. nothing of us should be left.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by seventh
you're still here...how strange.


meh, the human race should be destroyed. nothing of us should be left.

no-one said they were so inclined to unilaterally act in order to promote their ideals.

and your end statement indicates that you are a sad case.

[Proteus]

An imperial autocracy, with an aristocratic senate to do the hard work for the Emperor.

I would be the Emperor of course.

(If I wasn't the Emperor, this would be one of my least favourite systems of government.)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by seventh
none of you are socialist or marxist or anything similar, or even mildly anti corporate, you are all playing computer games using software made by one of the biggest companies (well nearly all of you) and basically yeh you all make up false ideals to make yourself more interesting.

I also have my letters delivered by the Royal Mail, I'm also obviously a covert monarchist...

And yes, I play computer games (don't pay for them obviously) - what the hell does that have to do with anything? Engels (Marx's partner in writing the Communist Manifesto) owned factories and by modern levels was a millionaire.

Anyway, as Radical Edward said : one can't act unilaterally. The world we live in has certain structures of power in place. While you shouldn't deliberately make things worse, it's childish to presume you can somehow escpae these structures through some kind of voluntarism. "OMG, I can't eat bread it's made by a corporation, or drink water as it's transported by a corporation, etc, etc". As for charity when did Marxists start supporting giving everything to the church?

Anyway as for greed : What about it? Is that actually an argument or what? If some sort of case needs to be stated then please do. Otherwise it just looks like poor quality trolling.

[CCSD]

The problem with intellectuals is that they have theories of what should work, and when it does not, they blame society, and not their theories themselves. Gotta love the Euro's though. Only in Europe, (and selected US learning institutions), can a truly bad idea be brought up over and over, even though it's failed every single time it's been tried. Socialism always was a nice sounding idea fellas. Too bad it's practical application always has failed when it ran up against the one thing no amount of political theory could change, human nature.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by CCSD
The problem with intellectuals is that they have theories of what should work, and when it does not, they blame society, and not their theories themselves. Gotta love the Euro's though. Only in Europe, (and selected US learning institutions), can a truly bad idea be brought up over and over, even though it's failed every single time it's been tried. Socialism always was a nice sounding idea fellas. Too bad it's practical application always has failed when it ran up against the one thing no amount of political theory could change, human nature.

I like the way that your system is working so much better.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by CCSD
The problem with intellectuals is that they have theories of what should work, and when it does not, they blame society, and not their theories themselves.

I think you'll find that 'the problem' with intellectuals is that they have to reach a level of abstraction that sits comfortably between relevance and accounting for differences. Thus each theory of the state tends to be based upon their own experience of government.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by CCSD
Too bad it's practical application always has failed when it ran up against the one thing no amount of political theory could change, human nature.

You've gotten confused because socialism has two meanings. One is what Dante (bless his little heart) has been rabbiting on about.

The other is where the state carries out a social program on the back of a capitalist economy. This is what we have in europe. It appears to be working quite well.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by CCSD
Socialism always was a nice sounding idea fellas.

Which European countries (or US learning institutions) have abolished private property, abolished intellectual property and done away with land ownership?

[Jammers]

No democracy, because people don't know whats best for themselves, and due to voter apathy they probably wouldn't miss elections very much(well some might, but there would be a pro-asylum seeker policy which would involve shipping them off to France to seek asylum). There would be plenty of nifty civil rights so that people wouldn't be too bothered about what the Government does. Anyone is allowed to come into the country, as long as they pledge allegiance to me.
Laws would be passed by the executive(me) with the help of a team of advisors(a Cabinet). Each year, a group of people would be randomly selected(like a Jury) to ensure that the laws passed are not oppressive. In this way the People would have a greater say in the Government than in the current system.
In the legal system, Judges accompanied by Magistrates, since Judges tend to not have a clue about real life. Jury trials would continue to be used in the Crown Court.
Benefits would be dealt with like the old Poor Relief system(each village puts money into the pot, and then the village authorities dish it out on a case by case basis.
There would be no private education, to prevent the rich being able to buy success for their children. But clever children would get to go to what used to be private schools(since they tend to be better)
Public healthcare would provide a no frills service for adults, but children would be entitled to full healthcare (they shouldn't have to suffer if their parents are poor) as long as they attend school regularly(so they can grow up to get a good job).
Public shows of religion would be banned(that includes Muslim women being forced to wear veils), and any religion which promotes discrimination would be outlawed.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Jammers
Public shows of religion would be banned(that includes Muslim women being forced to wear veils), and any religion which promotes discrimination would be outlawed.

that's rather oppressive of you. have you ever thought that muslim women might want to wear those veils?

[Jammers]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
that's rather oppressive of you. have you ever thought that muslim women might want to wear those veils?

Why should they be exempt from the law? Are they in some way "special"?
The law on public shows of religion is primarily designed to stop (usually Christian) churches having massive posters outside trying to lay a guilt trip on passersby, and perhaps converting the weaker members of society(children, people with mental conditions etc)
Although the veil itself may not be used as a method of converting people, it certainly causes them to appear (to me at least) distant from the rest of society, and unwilling to integrate. Also, how do we know they chose to wear veils? If they were brought up as a Muslim from a young age, it may not have occured to them that they don't have to wear a veil, and that Allah will not smite them down with a lightening bolt(or whatever Allahs weapon of choice is)
Besides, in the Middle East even non-Islamic women are forced to wear veils because it's the normal thing to do. In the West, the normal thing is for women to be treated equally, and not to be forced to wear degrading clothing.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Jammers
Why should they be exempt from the law? Are they in some way "special"?
Besides, in the Middle East even non-Islamic women are forced to wear veils because it's the normal thing to do. In the West, the normal thing is for women to be treated equally, and not to be forced to wear degrading clothing.

I am not saying they shoud be exempt, I am just saying that there should be no laws dictating what we can or cannot wear (within the bounds of decency.)

and if you are going to ban shows of religion based on that reasoning, you should be banning all advertising.

remember they coud equally say similar things about the western women, pointing out how disgusting it is that they have hair in full view and breasts wobbling about all over the place, and how they will be smited with thunderbolts (though I believe one of Alla's favourites is boiling lead in the ears, which displays a remarkable lack of ingenuity for one who is supposed to be all powerful)

I agree that no-one should be forced to wear these things, but if they want to out of their own choice, then fair enough.

[queball]

Originally posted by CCSD
The problem with intellectuals is that they have theories of what should work, and when it does not, they blame society, and not their theories themselves. Gotta love the Euro's though. Only in Europe, (and selected US learning institutions), can a truly bad idea be brought up over and over, even though it's failed every single time it's been tried. Socialism always was a nice sounding idea fellas. Too bad it's practical application always has failed when it ran up against the one thing no amount of political theory could change, human nature.

So how do you think people should act in terms of politics, society, etc if not "intellectually"? Just act within their roles and regulations and do whatever they like?

What about greed?

[Kumnaa]

Tribal

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by queball
So how do you think people should act in terms of politics, society, etc if not "intellectually"? Just act within their roles and regulations and do whatever they like?

What about greed?

First thing we've got to do queball is to kill all the lawyers.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
First thing we've got to do queball is to kill all the lawyers.

**** right off.

[GavGull]

- Greater authority to regional governments, though restriction to a broad constitution.
- Public referendums on every major act of national parliament, state referendums on more meagre legislation.
- Welfare systems to promote equal opportunity and rehabilitation though not necessarily true egalitarianism in state.
- Libertarian policies on social freedom (self ownership, freedom in all matters except in the denial of others' freedom).
- Taxation according to consumption not income (decrease in income taxes, increase in VAT* - though VAT on essential goods remains at 0%). This includes, for example, removal/reduction of 'road tax' in favour of tolls on major roads.
- Laissez-faire capitalism with ('federal') government funded projects to spread consumer awareness and incentives for consumer-friendly business practices.

*Including significant raises of VAT on tobacco, drugs (would be legalised) and the like.

Far too broad a statement to make in such a brief summary.

[Vermillion]

"Democracy is the absolute worst form of government, except for all the other ones ever tried"

Winston Churchill.

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Vermillion
"Democracy is the absolute worst form of government, except for all the other ones ever tried"

Winston Churchill.

The Roman Republic was by far the best form of government ever.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Proteus
The Roman Republic was by far the best form of government ever.

By whose standard? certainly not by the Romans, who got rid of it to create an Empire, and (despite the fiction of the movie Gladiator) never made any serious attempt to return to it.

Remember Caesar was elected as Emperor, voted that not only by the Sebnate, but by the tribunate.

The republic was messy, bloated and ineficient run through a series of proto-emperors who rules until they died, emperors in all but name. Marius, Sulla and the rest ruled during the time of the republic, but they ruled as Kings. The best of the Republican representatives, people like the Gracchi brothers, were speedily assassinated because they tried to make it a REAL republic.

The creation of Caesar, and more formally Augustus as Emperor was not the destruction of the Republic in favour of an Empire, it was simply the formal recognition of a reality which had long existed, Rome was not a Republic.