1
   

What Is the Best Form of Government?

 
 
Caezius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 05:08 am
@Fido,
Fido;69877 wrote:
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...


Your theory is flawed. Democracy is a political system, but communism is a political and economic system. The theory is much better worked:

"You cannot have a socialist society without democracy or democracy without socialism. One is the political form of the other, and the other is the economic form of it."

Unlike communism, socialism is just an economic theory seeking a balance with a political theory like democracy in order to create a more mixed, and there for, at least theoretically, fairer society. This bond acts as a yin and yang like harmony, but communism is a political and economic theory creating it's own rhythm and checks and balances, and over all ideology as a whole as it goes along when practiced. This is also the reason why communist governments have sometimes, but not all the times failed.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:13 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;70700 wrote:
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.

Order is no object of the government of the United States as stated...Neither is supporting the economy which is supposed to support it a goal...So it does what it did not set out to do and does not do that which it set out to do...
0 Replies
 
EquesLignite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:11 am
@Theaetetus,
From my observation, empiracally, I would suggest the best form of government is a constitutional monarchy. It preserves the cultural roots, heritage, as well as identity and loyalty, yet at the same time does not diminish the freedom of the people to mind their own business. A constitutional monarchy with strong safeguard against governmental encroachment into the privacy and freedom of individuals is the most practical and virtuous government.

However, that statement above is suited for countries that have long history of monarchical government. For the United States, which is historically and culturally republican (small r), a constitutional republic of this day is quite good despite its shortcomings. Yes, there is unfairness and injustice in U.S., but compare it to some third-world nations ruled by thugs, or authoritarian regimes that kill people simply for disagreeing, U.S. government is a very good government.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:32 am
@EquesLignite,
EquesLignite;71096 wrote:
From my observation, empiracally, I would suggest the best form of government is a constitutional monarchy. It preserves the cultural roots, heritage, as well as identity and loyalty, yet at the same time does not diminish the freedom of the people to mind their own business. A constitutional monarchy with strong safeguard against governmental encroachment into the privacy and freedom of individuals is the most practical and virtuous government.

However, that statement above is suited for countries that have long history of monarchical government. For the United States, which is historically and culturally republican (small r), a constitutional republic of this day is quite good despite its shortcomings. Yes, there is unfairness and injustice in U.S., but compare it to some third-world nations ruled by thugs, or authoritarian regimes that kill people simply for disagreeing, U.S. government is a very good government.


I've actually heard that there's more individual freedom in the US than in the UK. What do you mean when you say 'empirically'?
EquesLignite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:34 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;71100 wrote:
I've actually heard that there's more individual freedom in the US than in the UK. What do you mean when you say 'empirically'?

Oh really? At least in UK you don't get in jail for smoking a joint as you do in U.S. Netherland is one of the most free country in the world, economically or socially (the Wall Street Journal ranks it to be one of the most economically free country, ahead of US I think) and it is a constitutional monarchy.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:47 am
@EquesLignite,
EquesLignite;71103 wrote:
Oh really? At least in UK you don't get in jail for smoking a joint as you do in U.S. Netherland is one of the most free country in the world, economically or socially (the Wall Street Journal ranks it to be one of the most economically free country, ahead of US I think) and it is a constitutional monarchy.


Damn, no offense . . . lol. What is the actual governmental utility of a monarchy? Modern Western monarchies are just for show and tell.
EquesLignite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 12:00 pm
@Theaetetus,
I am sorry if I was a little rude in my previous post. What I thought about constitutional monarchy's benefit is that there are many people in any country that would blindly follow ideologies without thinking, harming the premise of democracy, but if their loyalty lies with a king/queen that doesn't say or do much, their un-intellctual-ness would be harmless as opposed to following a fanatic ideology, religious fundamentalism, or similar things, as the so-called "religious right" Republican base has done in the United States.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 12:24 pm
@EquesLignite,
EquesLignite;71113 wrote:
I am sorry if I was a little rude in my previous post. What I thought about constitutional monarchy's benefit is that there are many people in any country that would blindly follow ideologies without thinking, harming the premise of democracy, but if their loyalty lies with a king/queen that doesn't say or do much, their un-intellctual-ness would be harmless as opposed to following a fanatic ideology, religious fundamentalism, or similar things, as the so-called "religious right" Republican base has done in the United States.


Well I agree with you on the religious fundamentalism, and ideological dogmatism of the Republican party. However, a monarchy can be dangerous when people are told to faithfully follow their leaders without regard to their own intuitions and principles. That can lead to nationalism, blind patriotism, and monarchical tyranny.
0 Replies
 
Dearhtead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 01:14 pm
@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?



The purpose of the government is to emancipate, to stop bad action with just law.
We don't need a goverment at all.
The ideal government want justice. It should represent the truth.
Both authorianism and democracy can be effective. It is their justice which make them effective or not.
The education conveys the idea of justice and emancipation.
EquesLignite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 01:25 pm
@Dearhtead,
hue-man;71122 wrote:
Well I agree with you on the religious fundamentalism, and ideological dogmatism of the Republican party. However, a monarchy can be dangerous when people are told to faithfully follow their leaders without regard to their own intuitions and principles. That can lead to nationalism, blind patriotism, and monarchical tyranny.

What I was talking about was a constitutional monarchy, meaning the king/queen is only symbolic and not powerful. This makes a great difference because the monarch is a symbolic one. When the uneducated mass' loyalty is solely to the symbol, and not an outlined ideology or an actual politician, they would have a healthy distrust towards the people who actually govern --- the prime minister, cabinet, etc. When a prime minister becomes corrupt, they would vote him out instead of blindly follow him.
Dearhtead;71142 wrote:
The purpose of the government is to emancipate, to stop bad action with just law.
We don't need a goverment at all.
The ideal government want justice. It should represent the truth.
Both authorianism and democracy can be effective. It is their justice which make them effective or not.
The education conveys the idea of justice and emancipation.


While both democracy and illiberal regimes can be just at one time, the difference is --- a liberal democracy can re-adjust itself quickly when injustice and corruption happens (it is bound to happen to any regime as long as humans are not perfect) because people can question the government; while in authoritarian governments you get gunned down for questioning the leader, and mistakes don't get corrected.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 05:59 am
@Theaetetus,
The object of government is to defend rights, and to defend the people from attack... To make it responsive to the will of the people, and effect in defense is the challenge... It was not always a primary consideration for the voters that the president would be Commander in Chief...It has become more essential as we have thought less of defense and more of offense, and while it may be argued that a good offense is a good defense; the fact is that we have been drawn into war in defense of capital which seeks profit everywhere, and everywhere offends...

The rich are rich because they do not have to pay for the wars they start, or all the poor people they create... They trumpet constantly about all the wealth they create; but that is poor consolation for the poor who create much of that wealth for them...In fact, the inequalites the government has allowed to develop represent a failure of government and a diversion from the goals for which it was constituted
Dearhtead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 06:09 am
@Fido,
Fido;71349 wrote:
In fact, the inequalites the government has allowed to develop represent a failure of government and a diversion from the goals for which it was constituted


You're right, the inequality of treatment is a shame.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 06:18 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;71108 wrote:
Damn, no offense . . . lol. What is the actual governmental utility of a monarchy? Modern Western monarchies are just for show and tell.

The hold of the rich on power is so complete, and the cause of the poor is so hopeless that they can afford to let the masses drown themselves in drugs and alcohol....And yes; majority rule is a monster... The very worst tendency of human beings to control others when they cannot control themselves... Democracy gives a person no more control over others than they need for their own defense from them....Majority rule leave no one with much defense... We fall back on the constitution, but without the shire reeve of the president upholding our rights, or the court, you are out of luck no matter how much on the face of it, that some law or act of business acts against the contitution...This government does not offer us any protection, and has become the enemy...
0 Replies
 
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 07:42 am
@EquesLignite,
EquesLignite;71145 wrote:
What I was talking about was a constitutional monarchy, meaning the king/queen is only symbolic and not powerful. This makes a great difference because the monarch is a symbolic one. When the uneducated mass' loyalty is solely to the symbol, and not an outlined ideology or an actual politician, they would have a healthy distrust towards the people who actually govern --- the prime minister, cabinet, etc. When a prime minister becomes corrupt, they would vote him out instead of blindly follow him.


I get you, but my point is that a monarchy is useless to a governmental system. It's just for show and tell, nothing more.

Many political scientists do argue that a parliamentary system is more efficient than a presidential system, but that's because policies get passed quicker and easier.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 03:22 pm
@Theaetetus,
The worst thing we got from England was parties... Napoleon was correct to ban them...It is ineviable that they will divide up the population between them and do nothng for either side... So we have partocracy...How does that get us closer to the stated goal of a more perfect union??? We know how England has survived so long as a class divided society... The older we get the less distance becomes an impediment to our enemies, most of whom are in charge of the place...
EquesLignite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 05:12 pm
@Fido,
Fido;71493 wrote:
The worst thing we got from England was parties... Napoleon was correct to ban them...It is ineviable that they will divide up the population between them and do nothng for either side... So we have partocracy...How does that get us closer to the stated goal of a more perfect union??? We know how England has survived so long as a class divided society... The older we get the less distance becomes an impediment to our enemies, most of whom are in charge of the place...


What? No offense, but the current British government is working quite well, despite so many people attacking it. Ask any people who live in oppressive authoritarian regimes who are in prison for political "crimes", whether it is preferable to live in Britain or those countries. Britain now has a vibrant economy (save for the crisis, because this crisis is global and not particularly British), a flourishing culture of literary and musical genius, and a healthy parliamentary system that many other countries attempt to emulate. There is no perfect state, only ones that are better than others.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 06:57 pm
@EquesLignite,
EquesLignite;71876 wrote:
What? No offense, but the current British government is working quite well, despite so many people attacking it. Ask any people who live in oppressive authoritarian regimes who are in prison for political "crimes", whether it is preferable to live in Britain or those countries. Britain now has a vibrant economy (save for the crisis, because this crisis is global and not particularly British), a flourishing culture of literary and musical genius, and a healthy parliamentary system that many other countries attempt to emulate. There is no perfect state, only ones that are better than others.

Working well for the rich... I am always struck when it gets down to the street, if the people there are ever interviewed, just how uneducated and crummy they seem... They can't even speak English...For most of those people, the third world is something to look up to..
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 06:37 pm
@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.


I agree T., my only objection would be that, paraphrasing Mel Gibson's character in the The Patriot, "3000 men 1 mile away can be as oppressive as 1 man 3000 miles away." Democracy and tyrannry can go hand in hand.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 08:31 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;78510 wrote:
I agree T., my only objection would be that, paraphrasing Mel Gibson's character in the The Patriot, "3000 men 1 mile away can be as oppressive as 1 man 3000 miles away." Democracy and tyrannry can go hand in hand.

Speak the truth...If you are oppressed by any number, it is because your government offers no protection for your rights... Every community exists for a defense of rights... People do not pay dues, taxes, or make contributions or sacrifices for fun... We are looking for the defense numbers alone give us... But if you stand alone because your cause is unjust then you will be oppressed and democracy will seem as tyranny... The ideal is no one oppressing anyone... Can we have that??? If you leave me to my own affairs and I leave you to yours so long as your affairs do not become mine, or mine become yours then we are both free... Then government should do good and better what no person alone can do..Th, ii oranizatia common puose ...Why we are constituted as a nation is clearly spelled out... What part of that is tyranny???Sure we want something for nothing, but it is because we have had enough of nothing for something... The injustice of this land, the tyranny of the ruling class has resulted in wide spread injustice.... That and no fair deal is how all the wealth worth having has gotten into the control of the rich...If our government would work, it could be our defense against enemies here and abroad...Now it is no defense at all...Rather, we need defense from our government which gives every freedom to the rich and curtails our freedom at every turn...
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 10:52 am
@Theaetetus,
The state of society, its values and norms, its weaknesses and lapses, inevitably defines its government to a great extent. Peoples last for millenia while few governments survive more than a few centuries before they're tossed aside for something else. Those that do last are capable of evolving, sometimes to the point of re-inventing themselves, to accommodate changing circumstances and attitudes.

I think the best form of government is that which encourages, perhaps even facilitates the strongest, healthiest society to nurture the symbiosis between citizen and state. Likewise, a sick society is symptomatic of sick government, a problem recently addressed by American contemporary chronicler Chris Hedges:

"...The childish idea that we can always prevail, that reality is never an impediment to what we want, is the central motif of illusion peddled on popular talk shows, by the Christian Right, by Hollywood, in corporate retreats, by the news industry and by self-help gurus. Reality can always be overcome. The future will always be glorious. And held out to keep us amused and entertained are spectacles and celebrities who have become idealized versions of ourselves and who, we are assured, we can all one day become.


"The cultural embrace of illusion, and the celebrity culture that has risen up around it, have accompanied the awful hollowing out of the state. We have shifted from a culture of production to a culture of consumption. We have been sold a system of casino capitalism, with its complicated and unregulated deals of turning debt into magical assets, to create fictional wealth for us and vast wealth for our elite. We have internalized the awful ethic of corporatism -- one built around the cult of the self and consumption as an inner compulsion -- to believe that living is about our own advancement and our own happiness at the expense of others. Corporations, behind the smoke screen, have ruthlessly dismantled and destroyed our manufacturing base and impoverished our working class. The free market became our god and government was taken hostage by corporations, the same corporations that entice us daily with illusions though the mass media, the entertainment industry and popular culture.


"The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world, a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas, for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans and a celebration of violence the more we implode. We ask, like the wrestling fans or those who confuse love with pornography, to be fed lies. We demand lies. The skillfully manufactured images and slogans that flood the airwaves and infect our political discourse mask reality. And we do not protest. The lonely Cassandras who speak the truth about our misguided imperial wars, the global economic meltdown and the imminent danger of multiple pollutions that are destroying the eco-system that sustains the human species, are drowned out by arenas full of fans chanting "Slut! Slut! Slut!" or television audiences chanting "Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!" The worse reality becomes, the less a beleaguered population wants to hear about it and the more it distracts itself with squalid pseudo-events of celebrity breakdowns, gossip and trivia.


"A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies. And we are dying now. We will wake from our state of induced childishness, one where trivia and gossip pass for news and information, one where our goal is not justice by an elusive and unattainable happiness, to confront the stark limitations before us or we will continue our headlong retreat into fantasy."

Within a culture so deeply afflicted is there any form of government that could be considered ideal? When the society and government become mutually corruptive, arguments over the fine points of individual versus collective rights and economic models become almost absurd.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 7.75 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 06:34:51