What Is the Best Form of Government?

@Theaetetus,

Oh but that was certainly Mussolini's view. He dreamed of resurrecting Roman fascism by extending Italy's control into Africa. It's why he waged war on Abyssinia - for glory. Perhaps, however, you could give an example of fascism that was peaceful.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

RD, my claim isn't that any particular institution of fascism has been perfect, or even particularly good. I merely think that, in the abstract, fascism is an excellent sort of government, and properly instituted, it could solve a lot of problems.

Besides, what about Franco's Spain? Spain wasn't involved in a whole bunch of wars during his reign.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

No, Spain had but one war - a terribly bloody and vicious civil war - followed by decades of brutal repression. Believe me, Franco isn't the example you want to use of benevolent fascism.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Fransisco is precisely my ideal sort of fascist leader. I quote Wikipedia:

Quote:

On the other hand, Catholicism in its most conservative variant was made official religion of the Spanish State. Civil servants had to be Catholic, and some official jobs even required a "good behavior" statement by a priest. Civil marriages which had taken place under Republican Spain were declared null and void and had to be reconfirmed by the Catholic Church of Spain. Civil marriages were only possible after the couple made a public renunciation to the Catholic Church. Divorce was forbidden, and also contraceptives and abortion.

1 Reply

@Bonaventurian,

Bon,

Some think that it is right to force others to live as they believe is right, most do not. I think its a matter of insecurity.

I would allow the world to burn, so long as it burned freely, though I think that the modified Nightwatchman state is the ideal to be achieved.

You might wish to read the book Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick. He appeals to certain Kantian principles and to certain arguments of Locke to justify and clarify the libertarian ideal as he sees it.

Personally, I don't see how a society can be Christian and Fascist. I believe that Christianity is contingent upon the freedom to choose to follow it, any other way is false. Is it not disingenuous to force one to accept Christ(as they could only be doing what is needed to survive rather than acting on some internal calling)?

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;67683 wrote:

I find BrightNoon's rigid, minimalist concept of government curious to say the least. How does one 'elect' a judge by lottery? A one-year term for judges? Does this fellow have no grasp of how litigation works? These odd judges would be so burdened wading through files and getting up to speed on all the evidence and issues that they wouldn't finish before their terms expired and their replacement began the same process. Unpaid judges? You can be sure they wouldn't be 'unpaid' for long.

Declarations of war? What a quaint notion. When did the US last actually declare war on anyone? How many undeclared wars has it waged since then? While he contemplates war being waged solely by the federal government, he would give the right to end it to state legislatures and a plebiscite. That is surely a formula for chaos and all manner of mischief.

What is especially notable by its absence in this model for minimalist government is regulation and oversight. It appears, to me at least, ideally suited to corruption.

Why should anyone endure more government than they need??? Why should they endure any form that is not working...If it is an inconvenience to declare war, that means the form is not working... So what is the cure??? Is it to go to war without full public support because full public support cannot be had???
If government does not answer to the people, and does not follow its own goal of justice, then is more law the answer??? We need litigation because business people have no moral restraint... Is oversight the cure, or still another form when the form of Nation no longer keeps people out of other's pockets???People forever try to cure one failed form with another when what they need is not a cure, but a replacement... We are already too formal... That is what happens when the undelying relationship is going to hell... People cling to the form of marriage when the love is gone...Well the love is Gone here too, and just as humanity has always done, when the form does not meet their needs which cannot be changed, then the form is changed, and the whole progression of humanity has been with a change of forms...

You seem to suggest we need more government... Societies die with an excess of government... Everyone of those people holding a government job is not egaged in productive activity...Well technology is great, and we can support multitudes in government, and military, and in board rooms... But eventually all the mouths society must feed suck all the profit out of every activity, and the thing dies...We have 20 percent of the population engaged in productive activity, and they accout for 80 percent of the exports...But, the financial sector accounts for 90% of the profits in this country... So this one group forcing people into service jobs, feeding everyone credit until they cannot live without it, and then squezing the money out of everyone is like a parasite that has to be got rid of for health...The cure is not a form on top of a form designed to make the failed form work...The cure is a new form... Ask the question... What do we want from government, and what do we want from each other..If people only live here to feed on us, and live like Plato in Athens having only contempt for the common man, then let them go where they will, but tell them if they stay they will have to change their behavior...

In a democracy the people are the government, and in addition, they are the law...All government needs to be is large enough to do what the people decide, which is a great degree smaller than it is trying to tell everyone what to do in their bedrooms, their homes, and doctor's office...

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Fido there's an enormous difference between effective government and excessive government. I can understand your frustration with the problems that have come to plague government in your country. I don't want to cast aspersions but I cannot think of any government in post WWII America that came closer to Mussolini's stated goal of merging government and corporatism than the last Republican administration. Think Halliburton, think Blackwater, think Big Oil and Big Coal. What was this but a twisted social experiment gone amok?

And Bo, think very carefully what you wish for.

And Zete - remember the Diet of Worms. Certain forms of Christianity have functioned relatively well under fascist rule.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;67683 wrote:

I find BrightNoon's rigid, minimalist concept of government curious to say the least. How does one 'elect' a judge by lottery? A one-year term for judges? Does this fellow have no grasp of how litigation works? These odd judges would be so burdened wading through files and getting up to speed on all the evidence and issues that they wouldn't finish before their terms expired and their replacement began the same process. Unpaid judges? You can be sure they wouldn't be 'unpaid' for long.

Declarations of war? What a quaint notion. When did the US last actually declare war on anyone? How many undeclared wars has it waged since then? While he contemplates war being waged solely by the federal government, he would give the right to end it to state legislatures and a plebiscite. That is surely a formula for chaos and all manner of mischief.

What is especially notable by its absence in this model for minimalist government is regulation and oversight. It appears, to me at least, ideally suited to corruption.

The judges are selected by lottery from among known educated people so that there is neither a possibility of partisan appointments, nor judges ignorant of the law. Perhaps your right about the term though, that is too short. The idea is that the shorter the term, the less chance for corruption of the judge. Maybe we could make it three or four years. It also it supposed to be a burden, hence the lack of pay. However, the room and board is provided so that not only wealthy people can become judges. This is similiar to what the Athenians did, with great success for centuries.

Your comments about declaration of war are curious. The fact that the U.S. government engages in foreign adventures constantly without declarations fo war is precisely the reason that I'm suggesting a more difficult process. On the other hand I've made it easier for the states and the people to end the war if the national government, which is responsible for directing the war, will not. Those safeguards, along with the fact that the federal government would have to appropriate funds in an extraodrdinary manner during wartime, making the costs very evident to all, should make wars less likely, especially the agressive, imperial wars that are common today.

Regulation and oversight is exactly what I want to avoid. If the government does not have the power to regulate daily life of the citizens, it doesn't haver the power to opress them. My assumption is that the government will abuse any power its given, or at the very least act incompetantly; its a neccessary evil, which I want to contain as much as possible.

Bonaventurian;67694 wrote:

I don't think that there's a best form of government. There's only governments which are acceptable and some which are not. I'm all about fascism, but I don't think that it's necessarily better than other governments in every way possible. I can understand why people would disagree with me.

Any governmental system which values the group above the individual is anathema to me. All forms of collectivism are really fascistic, using concepts of social justice and equality only for propoganda. They are all attempts to create the divine ant hill, the only question is whether the ants are aware of the guardians (fascism) or not (communism). Fascism is simply the merger of state and commerce, the rule of corporations: a state of affairs where the corporations ahve overtly or covertly acquired the recognized monopoly of power in a society. Moussolini and Hitler were notorious, but they're small potatoes compared to the modern anglo-american fascist system. For now its fascism with a smile, but that smile is fading. I really don't understand how anyone who knows what fascism is could like fascism, unless of course they are either the leader or one of the well-fed poodles kept on hand by the regime.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;67771 wrote:

Fido there's an enormous difference between effective government and excessive government. I can understand your frustration with the problems that have come to plague government in your country. I don't want to cast aspersions but I cannot think of any government in post WWII America that came closer to Mussolini's stated goal of merging government and corporatism than the last Republican administration. Think Halliburton, think Blackwater, think Big Oil and Big Coal. What was this but a twisted social experiment gone amok?

The object has come from being freedom for capital to active enslavement of the population to to keep capitalism functioning... When property supported the country, labor was dear because it was necessary to make property profitable... But taxing wages has forced wages down, and has accelerated the movement of wealth into the accounts of the rich... We never had much of a democracy, but easy wealth has perverted the whole thing...They plead poverty when it comes to paying taxes, but they have plenty of money to tilt the course of government into their pockets... It will work as long a the poor can be put on the hook for all the deficits... We all have the correct tendency to look at it as so many numbers, and having as little meaning... If they do not pay us more we cannot pay more since we can hardly pay now what we must to support government...I think it is edging toward fascism, and you can see this in the way the right squeals about socialism when the socialism we have is only the socialism of poverty...We are getting industrial feudalism, where if you do not surrender your rights you will not have a job... Forget bargaining... Forget benefits... Take what they give and keep your mouth shut...

1 Reply

@Fido,

That's a great point. People need to realize that this is not the socialism outlined by liberal professors and idealistic youth (not that I approve of that either); that is only the mask that this new system hides behind. It's really fascism, flat out. If nothing is done to stop this movement, it will end up every bit as oppressive as the 20th century's fascist regimes.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;68399 wrote:

That's a great point. People need to realize that this is not the socialism outlined by liberal professors and idealistic youth (not that I approve of that either); that is only the mask that this new system hides behind. It's really fascism, flat out. If nothing is done to stop this movement, it will end up every bit as oppressive as the 20th century's fascist regimes.

National socialism had its socialistic aspects, even some slogans..It is better for the few to sacrifice for the many... When the end came, many thousands died to keep a few escape routes open to the West for the worst of the criminals to make a run for it...So much for the sacrifice of the few...

No one should get hooked on ideals...You can have any amount of socialism mixed with other economies...Let people have their reward for driving society forward; but don;t let it become hereditary, because hereditary wealth is like hereditary government...It does not bring out the best, but it does cause society to suffer the worst...If wealth and property is always returned to the commonwealth it will always be there for the taking... Now,the public purse is empty...The government has little left to sell that anyone can or will buy...So instead of advancement, hereditary wealth, wealth that will not be leveled with taxation keeps government and people mired in poverty... Who should pay??? If the poor cannot pay, and the rich will not pay then then whole burden of society is laid on the backs of the middle class where it drives them into poverty, and still the rich refuse to pay...

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I think what we need, is a revolution of the youth of the country. Young people under the age of 40 must band together, and start pushing out government in the right directions. It is time to overthrow the powers that be, and begin to implement a power structure that abides by simple principles. It should not be about how much money do I spend now, but how much do I save later. People piss away money on dumb sh!t. Until there is a moment in which young people realize that this ideal is stupid, it will continue to exist.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;68476 wrote:

I think what we need, is a revolution of the youth of the country. Young people under the age of 40 must band together, and start pushing out government in the right directions. It is time to overthrow the powers that be, and begin to implement a power structure that abides by simple principles. It should not be about how much money do I spend now, but how much do I save later. People piss away money on dumb sh!t. Until there is a moment in which young people realize that this ideal is stupid, it will continue to exist.

What everybody says is that everyone is an individual, and the first thing every one says is organize...If people are truly individuals let them act as individuals and cause the old form to fall....Putting things back together better may take some cooperation, or organization; but that is the easy part... Getting people to give up finally and forever on the old form is the hard part, and those who have already lost their faith should show it with non cooperation....Where is the mythic individual when you need one???

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67321 wrote:

I noticed that there is not a thread on what the ideal form of government would look like, so I thought I would start one considering this moment in time now would be an ideal time to figure out what type of government would be best to govern a people.

Things to consider: What is the purpose of government? Why do we even need a government? What would the ideal government do, and what should it represent? How does justice influence government? Which is more effective, authoritarianism or democracy? Can basic rights be upheld in either? What about education?

How about a benevolent monarchy?

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Personally, I am all for a benevolent communist government. I think that may be the best way to go.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Benevolence and unlimited power are generally mutually exclusive characterstics of a government.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I am not necessarily calling for a government with mutually exclusive control, I am rather calling for a totally benevolent government controlled by no one but the people. That would be the ultimate potential of a communist government. You could easily have a democratic, but communistic society.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

At this point of time in Human history, i belive that the well educated informed higher class should influence the rest. Yet, the influence of the majority must be put into consideration.

But i belive that most nations are adopting radical philopshys (even iran)
specifiaclly economic princiapls such as socalism

then if we follow this the ideal government in the future will be radical and eventually become

liberatarian socalist (noam chomsky view of anarchism)

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;69787 wrote:

I am not necessarily calling for a government with mutually exclusive control, I am rather calling for a totally benevolent government controlled by no one but the people. That would be the ultimate potential of a communist government. You could easily have a democratic, but communistic society.

Judging by prehistory, you cannot have a communistic society without democracy or democracy without communism... One is the political form of the other, and the other is the economic form of it...

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67321 wrote:

I noticed that there is not a thread on what the ideal form of government would look like, so I thought I would start one considering this moment in time now would be an ideal time to figure out what type of government would be best to govern a people.

Things to consider: What is the purpose of government? Why do we even need a government? What would the ideal government do, and what should it represent? How does justice influence government? Which is more effective, authoritarianism or democracy? Can basic rights be upheld in either? What about education?

I believe that the purpose of government, at least in the modern world, is to maintain the social order. The original purpose of government is another matter. We need a government to protect our freedom from coercion and aggression. The ideal government should protect the rights of personal and non-personal organisms, and should pass laws that provide citizens with humane working conditions, freedom from unjustified discrimination, and fair wages to live on. Fairness is a prerequisite for justice, and so the state should be fair and impartial in its enforcement of justice. Authoritarianism is less effective at doing these things because it uses excessive and unwarranted coercion to silence dissent. Instead of minimizing coercion, authoritarianism maximizes coercion. Liberal democracy is the best way to uphold basic rights because it demands that the will of the people be heard, and that their rights be protected.

I believe that the government should provide free education to its citizens because it minimizes the gap between the lower and upper classes, and a more educated society is a more productive society.

1 Reply

What Is the Best Form of Government?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know