What Is the Best Form of Government?

Can't democracy protect the minority as well?
What does protecting the minority mean?

Can't democracy protect the minority as well?
What does protecting the minority mean?

Democracies often have what they call fundamental rights, explicit or implicit, to counter this problem. These rights cannot be done away with by the legislature. It is up to the courts to apply these rights when reviewing challenged legislation.

The problem is that democracies in that sense is a constitutionally limited form of government which makes it a constitutional democracy (which in retrospect is a republic). This can seem like a most appropriate government form, but what checks this authority of the majority, excluding fundamental rights and law?

Honestly you people are putting so much trust into an entity that is inherently prone to become corrupt (history is riddled with this). All collectivist forms of government, or welfare state, creates a class of dependent people. Fascist, Totalitarian, and Absolute governments have no corruption, because there is no dissent; those three are also the most oppresive as well. Democracy is in my opinion as the worst form of popular government as that majority will become the oppressive, because there is no limitations on the majority.

There is so such thing as a general perfect form of government. All people who institute government for their common benefit, general welfare(welfare as defined as the well-being of the people), and common protection. As government needs to be situated into what the governed thinks is expediant.

Every governed people sets up a different type of government. These forms of government are usually set up in the conditions that they deem bad.

The major flaw of government is that it is inherently corrupting as it is a very powerful institution. Big business does not and can not compare to big government, but both are extremely destructive. Sadly, government is a necessary evil. A society without government either that be standing bodies or laws cannot function, just like a system with too much laws.

I don't believe government can be perfect, but it can be set up to fit the common benefit of the governed.

I personally believe in a extremely limited government with an expressed powers list much like the texas constitution and the federal constitution.
Sadly, they are dependant upon two factors: strict constructionism and an educated governed.

I support a libertaruan style of society ie in rights, freedoms and definitely on government. This society would be socially ordered according to conservative and religious ideals. This society would have a laissez-fairre/anarcho capitalism. And for the government, i believe that it should be a Confederate Republic. Confederate is defined as a government made of several different sovereignties that retain more power within such sovereignties and closer to the people, and a republic defined as a a representative polity established on fundamental/constitutional law, with the power in the majority, but it is extremely limited and constrained(mainly as undeniable rights being retained by every individual and equal protection under the law). A polity is setup to have a more prestigous upper house and a general lower house, or in other words the upper hous would consist of wealthier people, and the lower of every person.

In this society, each person has the right to pursue and fulfill his or her unobtrusive vision of the good life. In such a society, the common good is the cumulative product of free and equal individuals who pursue meaningful aims. I already know that this would centralize wealth to a center point or an extreme point, so to avoid this the more local government (equivalent to the States of the United States) should hold economic regulatory power.

The most ideal government as i see it is that the government has to have the consent of the governed, and is extremely limited. I prefer how the United States were setup when it had rarified the Federal Constitution and in first few years.

As an odd side note, lobbyism should be extinct and illegal.

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 09:36 PM ----------

Fido, do you have an extreme hate towards the rich? Have you ever been employed by a poor man?

What should the ideals of government is the best sort of question that should be asked. Of course, the US constitution's preamble is the most stated, but the problem is that you just can't put ideals as the powers or how a government should function like if the ideal was no corruption then how would it be enforced. Ideals for government is just too broad.

The essential problem with this is that how would these be put into the mechanism. Ideals are upheld by the mechanics of the government. Usually, they are put down in some kind of findamental law (constitutional convention, constitution, etc).

The ideals of government are the powers that was it was granted by the governed. And, these should be centered around the rights of the individuals endowed onto them by Providence.

The only ideal of government should be the republicanist dogma of "The Rule of The Majority, and The Protection of The Minority." (in the broad sense).

For those who think that democracy is the best, democracy, as i said before, has been skewed to the point of being republicanism (not beliefs of the party). True, democracy is the sovereign power of the majority. Yes, majorities guides the decisions, but you can't claim that is democratic as that they only have certain delegated powers. Democracy is not the most stable. It creates factions and polarization, eventually. Sadly, i don't believe there is a stablest form of government---essentially it is the relationship of the governed and the government.

I have been under the impression that America is a capitalist democracy, which places a share of power in the hands of business under the philosophy of the consumer speaks. This combination has undoubtably been responsible for the greatest standard of living in history.
I certainly hope that the problems with business practices we are seeing today ,are not allowed to keep us from salvaging our government.

Yes, I think that's why we call them liberal democracies and not just democracies simply.
What checks the majority other than law? Well, liberal democracies are meant to be nations under law, places where laws rule, not men. This is deeply ingrained into society. Rule of law is a matter of habit, custom, and tradition. Were it not, liberal democracies would likely become unstable.

Dear Mr. Republican,
I do hope you picked your Name with Res Publica in mind and not a political movement. Your Institutions of Government were established 200 years ago and are reltively new and un-changed. In The Netherlands we change our Laws regulary to keep up with Times. We sign, ratify and promote international Law.
Our education has reached a level your Founding Fathers could only dream off. I am not a Democrat. I think census is a good base for voting-rights. One man, one vote. Except for people representing people.
I loath our quick profit orientated western world, speak no russian or chinese so would want to come to America del Sul. me gusta mas la gente alli, que muchos de los Americanos del Norte.
The whole American Constitution is laced with Liberal words, but has had a very restricting meaning to your societies development towards a socialite of the Capital. A state should protect and raise it's people(s), not just it's commerce.
Sincerely,
Pepijn Sweep
Magister Ox

The fact that not one goal of government listed in the preamble has been met is a clue that no part of our government can be salvaged... The thing has failed and the longer it lasts the greater will be its failures...

The consumer doesn't stimulate public investments, only consumption.
The greatest credit bubble you must mean.
I hope so to. The alternative for a Democratic Administration is not feaseble.
Yust 3 remarks,
Magister PepIx

Any truly functional democracy upholds the rights of the minority for the simple reason that none of us is ever in the majority on every issue.

Any truly functional democracy upholds the rights of the minority for the simple reason that none of us is ever in the majority on every issue. Trends and parties change and basic order would quickly dissolve in the face of mob rule. I tend to share my fellow countrymen's views on many points but by no means all. I can hardly expect my minority positions to be respected and accommodated if I don't extend that same consideration while in the majority. Constitutions enshrine core political and economic rights and freedoms that enable anyone, including a minority, to restrain abuse.

What Is the Best Form of Government?

Any truly functional democracy upholds the rights of the minority for the simple reason that none of us is ever in the majority on every issue. Trends and parties change and basic order would quickly dissolve in the face of mob rule. I tend to share my fellow countrymen's views on many points but by no means all. I can hardly expect my minority positions to be respected and accommodated if I don't extend that same consideration while in the majority. Constitutions enshrine core political and economic rights and freedoms that enable anyone, including a minority, to restrain abuse.

Ruled by philosophers. Read Plato.

philosopher*
Not many would accept the philosopher-king, granted we could find one.

meritocracy is what a government really needed.

In England the Meritocracy saved the crown, and the class hierarchy...I can't say if it has worked... Forms reproduce themselves in the young, and then repeat the errors of the past... England lost its empire under the meritocracy, and who can say that is good or bad since colonies take more to run than they earn...