What Is the Best Form of Government?

@Wisdom Seeker,

Wisdom Seeker;154488 wrote:

meritocracy is what a government really needed.

Why?

Meritocracy insures the individual with hard work 'gets to the top' and insures the individual without hard work to 'go to the bottom'.

What place does it have in government?

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 06:19 PM ----------

Fido;154489 wrote:

No philosopher would be king... Kings love power, and philosophers love knowledge, and regardless of what is said, knowledge is virtue, and ignorance is power, because the ignorant must always resort to force...

Marcus Aurelius was a philosophy king...

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

I was lazy so i didn't quote everyone (just so much). I grouped them together in catergories and answered accordingly. Sorry i didn't respond last, but the rain was so annoying...destroyed the signal and tons of property.

EmperorNero;154275 wrote:

Auction off political decisions; the highest bidder gets to decide. At least that way those who get favors through the coercive power of the state have to pay for them themselves.
Leave as many decisions as possible to the individual, i.e. reduce government. And those decisions we have to make collectively, announce an auction. The side that manages to raise more money wins. Those payments would be the only source of government revenue. (And technically they wouldn't be taxes.)

That is strangely a way to solve corruption by even a worse form of corruption. That is even worse than lobbyism. This suggestion, a very interesting one as it is, will eventually create an aristocracy or rule of the rich, but your idea of raising to support a position is a very good idea. Still rough and needing of certain clarifications is brilliant if applied to governmental programs. As I like this idea, there is some problems: what would happenb if no money is raised? How will the money be appropriated and by whom? What if no money is made for any position? What would happen to the money of the opposing position? Would the money have to be promised or actually given? How would corruption in the raising of such money be weeded out? Would the money solely go to the program? I like this idea, but could you expand on it.
Sadly, taxes are an absolute about government because there is a need to keep government running. I dispise taxes, but the sad thing is as we agreed to the social contract our posterity is bound to it too. The method and the amount of taxes should be severely limited to the point of nonexistence and appropriation of the money should be also limited. If taxes are small, government will be small or extremely effecient with the money.
I would love to have taxes voluntary, yet i know that no one would pay or only some; but, it is very difficult to guess people's behaviour with the government.
Political descision should be deliberated amongst representatives without any money in the equation. The position should be a public service which gives minimal compensation (as the person is leaving his business to do such a service), but i wish for the unobtainable zero compensationn for elected servants.
-----Philosopher Governing-----
Philosophers aren't free from selfishness and power desire. Knowledge is not virtue. It is simply a tool to gain the absolute Truth and to gain more. Ignorance is bliss because a person does not see what is beyond their bubble. Power is not Ignorance, but concentration of control.
-----Need of Government-----
Agreeable, you have one thing that i dislike: There has to be a government. The people rule through limited government. Elections of representative would be the people's influence on government (recall would be desirable to ensure that representatives don't act in a way the majority decide); as mentioned before, the government is controlled by the majority, but the majority should not have unlimited power. I hate to say, but getting consensus amongst a large group is fairly diffcult and unexpediant. I digress, said representatives should deliberate in assemblies which legislate laws. There should be some check upon the legislative power by some veto by the executive power whom enacts and enforces the laws. Then the judicial power should uphold the law and make precedent according to the policy made by either power.
-----Meritocracy-----
Meritocracy should be implemented in the non-elected servants appointment, but for representatives that wouldn't be feasible, sadly.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

I am not sure even the monarchs want the absolute monarchy back...Better to be pointless than headless...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;162254 wrote:

I am not sure even the monarchs want the absolute monarchy back...Better to be pointless than headless...

this couldn't be put any better. Thank you for making me laugh. :bigsmile:

From the standpoint of the individual, wouldnt the best form of goverment be the one that interfers with you the least. I think that goverment is for the weak, those who are to afraid to make their own decisions, and those who just cant fathom nobody being in charge. Nobody in the world has tasted true freedom in a long time. The individual lost his ability to self govern every time a new goverment took over, and it seems that they took more liberty away as time went on. You people just refuse to look outside the box and truly live your life. Goverment will always be there, im not naive enough to dream in pure anarchy, but there is still part of me that wishes that I at least had the option to rule myself and only myself.

1 Reply

@Maud Dib,

Maud' Dib;162504 wrote:

this couldn't be put any better. Thank you for making me laugh. :bigsmile:

From the standpoint of the individual, wouldnt the best form of goverment be the one that interfers with you the least. I think that goverment is for the weak, those who are to afraid to make their own decisions, and those who just cant fathom nobody being in charge. Nobody in the world has tasted true freedom in a long time. The individual lost his ability to self govern every time a new goverment took over, and it seems that they took more liberty away as time went on. You people just refuse to look outside the box and truly live your life. Goverment will always be there, im not naive enough to dream in pure anarchy, but there is still part of me that wishes that I at least had the option to rule myself and only myself.

But in America you do have that option. All it takes is a little change in perception.
The government is kind of like the lion you know is in the jungle with you.
As long as you pay him the necessary tribute and stay out of his way he pretty much leaves you alone.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

This is something of a political negotiation. The best form of government may be that the government belives in egalitarianism very strongly and treats the aristocrats and the poor equally without bias. The best form of government may be that it is the opposite of the Nazi Germany.

1 Reply

@Ennui phil,

Fido;162254 wrote:

I am not sure even the monarchs want the absolute monarchy back...Better to be pointless than headless...

Well, it depends...A power-lusting monarch would essentially love an absolute monarchy.
Liechtenstein is not an absolute monarchy, but they have, through a referdum amendment to their Constitution, expanded the power of their monarch. Still, obviously a constitutional monarchy, but it proves your post wrong, for the case of the people of Liechtenstein.
Oddly enough there is still absolute monarchies out there i.e. Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Vatican City (in the technical sense), and Tonga (monarch has the marity power in parlaiment). The first four are islamic absolute monarchies.

Maud' Dib;162504 wrote:

this couldn't be put any better. Thank you for making me laugh.
From the standpoint of the individual, wouldnt the best form of goverment be the one that interfers with you the least. I think that goverment is for the weak, those who are to afraid to make their own decisions, and those who just cant fathom nobody being in charge. Nobody in the world has tasted true freedom in a long time. The individual lost his ability to self govern every time a new goverment took over, and it seems that they took more liberty away as time went on. You people just refuse to look outside the box and truly live your life. Goverment will always be there, im not naive enough to dream in pure anarchy, but there is still part of me that wishes that I at least had the option to rule myself and only myself.

Hallelujah! All i have, except what are not seeing? How are we not outside said box? At least we understand the mechanisms of government through our own self-education (i can't speak all of you here). There is some people who understand what we call simple.
A society can't be a hermetic individualistic or, in this matter, commune collectivistic. A society will function the best with people ruling their own lives, but interactions between people (similar to currency, foreign affairs, and very basic infrastructure (this one could be privatized, but i haven't looked into that one yet)) must have a common law between hence a government to create societal normal already wanted or acted. So cultural and societal law to be in stone in other words.

wayne;162868 wrote:

But in America you do have that option. All it takes is a little change in perception.
The government is kind of like the lion you know is in the jungle with you.
As long as you pay him the necessary tribute and stay out of his way he pretty much leaves you alone.

This is the viewpoint i dispise equally with progressivism and anything collectivist. You claim the best way to have self-government is to pay the "lion" and ignore what it has and is doing. This is completely ignoring the whole fact that you're losing your liberty (then your chance pursue the happiness we desire). That is simply a denial.
I just have refutes this time.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Republican... The problem with democracy is that it is defensive against foreign enemies and susceptible to perversion from within...Because democracy in its natural state never encounters the problem of wealth and inequality it has no natural defense, and when societies get wealth they have no protection from inequality... The wealthy have the same rights as anyone else, but because they have rights in addition they end up with all rights and all wealth... Look at how soon the Franks divided between rich and poor when they got the stirrup, and only horsemen, and those wealthy enough to own horses were made eligible to govern... That was the Athens of Socrates where he made the argument that the best should govern. and what is the objective measure of that??? Republican government only accelerates the extraction of wealth from the citizens, and with wealth goes political power...The Caesars came to power on the strength of a failing democracy, but those who first gave them power were citizens without property who were dispossessed by competition with slaves... The inequality of wealth destroys democracy when ever it occurs... Well fine; but if you do not want mindless collectiviism and who does then what is the choice, because societies with wealth inequality soon become corrupt through and through... If you consider that we want to see people rewarded for socially beneficial activity, such as invention... Let people have their rewards, but only for the length of their lives... People do not have a right to hereditary wealth... We have found the hard way that hereditary government does not result in good government... We should realize that herditary wealth equals hereditary poverty, and that poor people do not have the luxury of self government... Let people have what they earn and then take all back to the commonwealth...

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

The problem with democracy is that it is susceptible to stupidity. Sure, that is usually caused from within, but generally people are too stupid for democracy to ever work properly. The general population is too stupid to realize that they are being undercut by the people in position of power. Thus, the 'democratic' world is manipulated by lower common denominators that are ultimately a result of money in politics.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;163225 wrote:

The problem with democracy is that it is susceptible to stupidity. Sure, that is usually caused from within, but generally people are too stupid for democracy to ever work properly. The general population is too stupid to realize that they are being undercut by the people in position of power. Thus, the 'democratic' world is manipulated by lower common denominators that are ultimately a result of money in politics.

To say that you must have some conception of democracy in action... What is it???

Because If you take the example of the Iroquois confederacy, it lasted longer by far than the Roman republic and served them well, allowing them to master many tribes which were numerically superior, which were all themselves democracies... All primitive societies were/are democracies... Done correctly, as the Iroquois did it, it involved the whole community in a common mind, demands agreement, and consensus without forcing the same, allowed for the greatest freedom within the community, and the greatest control of members outside of the community, which is ethics...Democracy produced a superior individual in terms of morality, courage, and intelligence, but in many respects, no individual at all, since his identity and freedom of action drew him back always to his community...He was never himself, out for himself... He was always was a member of his gentile group, repesentative of them, standing for them...

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

1 Reply

@Marat phil,

[QUOTE=Fido;163217]Republican... The problem with democracy is that it is defensive against foreign enemies and susceptible to perversion from within...Because democracy in its natural state never encounters the problem of wealth and inequality it has no natural defense, and when societies get wealth they have no protection from inequality... The wealthy have the same rights as anyone else, but because they have rights in addition they end up with all rights and all wealth... Look at how soon the Franks divided between rich and poor when they got the stirrup, and only horsemen, and those wealthy enough to own horses were made eligible to govern... That was the Athens of Socrates where he made the argument that the best should govern. and what is the objective measure of that??? Republican government only accelerates the extraction of wealth from the citizens, and with wealth goes political power...The Caesars came to power on the strength of a failing democracy, but those who first gave them power were citizens without property who were dispossessed by competition with slaves... The inequality of wealth destroys democracy when ever it occurs... Well fine; but if you do not want mindless collectiviism and who does then what is the choice, because societies with wealth inequality soon become corrupt through and through... If you consider that we want to see people rewarded for socially beneficial activity, such as invention... Let people have their rewards, but only for the length of their lives... People do not have a right to hereditary wealth... We have found the hard way that hereditary government does not result in good government... We should realize that herditary wealth equals hereditary poverty, and that poor people do not have the luxury of self government... Let people have what they earn and then take all back to the commonwealth...[/quote]
　
May i first mention that i hate Democracy, that decrepit model of government. Please look at my former posts. Defense of enemies is not inherent in the system. It could be nationalist; it depends upon the policies that is used within that society. Finally, in it's natural state, it is chaotic and schizophrenic upon policy because it has no "natural" defense to those who fuel the flames of the moment and go with that impulse.
　
They divided themselves because the Franks, and all Europeans, had a culture of aristocracy. You can't claim that their government was the problem; it was the result. As a add on, the French aren't known for their political stability.
　
Socrates is not the best philosopher to quote because of the Socratic problem. Anyway wasn't he killed by his own city-state for treason by democracy. Did he not say that man should focus himself upon self-development over material wealth. So when he states that the best rule, he meant those who have hit a peak of wisdom, not wealth. I believe that is the objective measure. Now i know you are going to question: "What is the standard?". Well, that's the problem there isn't a set one. It's a paradox.
　
Tell me, how does a republican government does such a thing. Any government can do such a thing. It is the tax policy that is in place. No government is specifically inclined to steal wealth, but the policy that is in place.
　
The first Caesar was put into power by seizing it and not letting it go. The rest can after the Republic was just a delusion in place to pacify the Romans. So there wasn't a democracy, nor a republic, just a dictatorship. I'm not sure if the citizens gave them power or not or if the Caesars came in power through the murder of the previous. The former i will speak as in theory. Politicians gain power easily and destructively by promising more roads, social security, handouts, et cetera. This is the system the United States received after the progressives and the loss of individualism.
　
How does wealth "inequality" destructive to society? A society has to have wealthy because then there is a need of labor to produce. The poor usually will be the labor. This is how society's economy starts generally. So, in this sense the labor, the wealth, and the product is property. So is it ethical to extradict their property to ensure that corruption would be prevented? It is not ethical, because it is stealing. Then what is a more appropriate method to prevent the said problem of wealth begets political powers then governmental corruption. The solution that historically worked in these United States was this...
　
People were considered different from amongst each in all cases. This was mainly placed culturally and in blind Justice. Next, the government was very constricted and limited to prevent any aggression or right violation by both the government and others. These rights not being those to commidities. Nextly, a government was setup that had a lower house which represented everyone; to check the problem of demogoguery, an upper house was instituted to be more prestigous and only people who had so much property could be in it. This was to ensure that experienced people could enter it. Both houses have qualifications that differ. Lastly, the least used was indirect elections.
　
This system was put into a culture that was very Judeo-Christian and capitalist. Even though there was exceptions, it was very successful, but not easy. Then the progressives came in a changed to become greedy, materialistic, self-centered, and sacreligious. How is it working? They taught the people to be not caring towrds others, unrestrained, and we were not judged for our life. How is that working? So the progressives then sprung to act out their policies. Socialism and authoritarianism and the ilk that you're supporting. How is this regulated society working? It's collapsing like all societies that forget and leave their culture i.e. Rome.

Yes, i admit that hereditary power is bad, but hereditary wealth is completely fine as long as it's not connected and not allowed to be connected to political power. That is lobbyism. Lobbyism came around the beginning of the Progressive Era. All other was basically forms of bribery to politicians before then. And doesn't progressives support socialist ideals, but then why do they allow lobbyism which is wealth influencing politics?
　
Yes, the poor have the blessing of self-government. They can change their jobs when the time is available. They can, but they don't. That means that they don't use it. Self-Government is a right, and rights do not have to be used. In Liberty, the poorest of men can become the richest through perserevance and corrent money management. Sadly, this is not possible anymore.
　
Now to your idea of giving to people according to societal gains from their existence. I will continue this on which essentially says men should economically act because of the incentive of societal gain. Such a person would then gain accordingly. Would you do that? What would happen to a person if they did not do anything; would they be supported or be forgotten? What would happen if someone does more than other, and obviously they would gain more, but wouldn't that create that wealth "inequality"? Wouldn't a hypocrisy be created if the government takes away a person's property and wealth, but has laws where other people can't steal from each other?
　
See that is the problem with the idea that equality is created and maintained when wealth and property is equal. The equality that had worked very successfully was that everyone was treated the same under the law, and those same people had the same decency to treat everyone finely, but people still were taught to deal with what others thought, said, and even did (at that point, a fight would ensue to protect a person's diginity and such. This system was essentially very rugged, but decent and polite. People weren't expected to do nice, but hoped, or begged, to and then thanked. Even if this doesn't seem nice, but it worked.
　
Commonwealth is defined as a the body politic formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is also synonomous with a republic. All i have for that.
　
[QUOTE=Theaetetus;163225]The problem with democracy is that it is susceptible to stupidity. Sure, that is usually caused from within, but generally people are too stupid for democracy to ever work properly. The general population is too stupid to realize that they are being undercut by the people in position of power. Thus, the 'democratic' world is manipulated by lower common denominators that are ultimately a result of money in politics.[/quote]

Agreeable at the begginning, but later you become very hateful, and at the end, i agree with you. The middle is can be solved with a moral and educated, not indoctrinated, electorate.One that values self-eduction and ambition. Democracy can be of intelligent men and still fail because that's the tendency of democracy. Attraction of corruption and demogoguery.
　
[QUOTE=Fido;163348]To say that you must have some conception of democracy in action... What is it??? [/quote][QUOTE=Fido;163348]
Because If you take the example of the Iroquois confederacy, it lasted longer by far than the Roman republic and served them well, allowing them to master many tribes which were numerically superior, which were all themselves democracies... All primitive societies were/are democracies... Done correctly, as the Iroquois did it, it involved the whole community in a common mind, demands agreement, and consensus without forcing the same, allowed for the greatest freedom within the community, and the greatest control of members outside of the community, which is ethics...Democracy produced a superior individual in terms of morality, courage, and intelligence, but in many respects, no individual at all, since his identity and freedom of action drew him back always to his community...He was never himself, out for himself... He was always was a member of his gentile group, repesentative of them, standing for them...[/QUOTE]
　
The conception is the illusion of the political elite trying to pacify the people is the answer for your question.
　
You sir, have obviously show a rewriting of history and a lack of knowledge of the Iroquois. I may be wrong, if my history that i have studied is faltered, but this is what i have been taught...The Iroquois were seperate tribes, independent that had joined to together to gain power. Each of the tribes had essentially the same culture, so they didn't clash that way. As all cities are different from the other, they still were self-governing and had their own goals and aims. They didn't have a "democracy" which uses votes to make decisions. They had a tribal cheifdom which was usually hereditary and/or an eleder council also not elected, but was the oldest, presummably the wisest, of the tribe. So would this not be hereditary, and did you not just argue against hereditary positions?
　
Now to their economic and community setup; there tribe was a traditional economy, so every jobs is either hereditary or there is jobs assigned according to gender. With this their economic choice is not maximum, but confide by custom. Then the tribe was essentially acted as one when in war, hunting, and such, but this is because they accorded themselves to keep the others alive; they acted not in a common mind, but towards a common goal: survival. Sounds like ethics to me; let's survival.
Did they not treat outsiders fairly cruelly especially if getting in their territory and the like? I mean they were very nationalistic in that sense; not open and inviting, but still reasonable to diplomacy as all peoples.

For everything after that capitalized Democracy and on...
This is communist democratic ideal where an individual is moral, intelligent, and courageous, but that who act with and for the community for he is identity was connected to the community. That is erraneous, because first democracy doesn't create a specifically superior person for it is not prone to this---no government is---; only a culture that values such things brings about that. Then the communal identity; are you saying that you are what your community is? If so, then you are no longer free, but constricted to what your community expects you to do? You are not bound to your community because it's your identity. Your identity is who you are and that alone. Yes, your community influences that and so does knowledge and culture. That statement is claim an influence is the same as the influenced. How so?
　
New Ancient Rome. The adapted ancient Roman law underlies all modern states of the world. All modern states of the World are constructed on the ancient Roman sample. Democracy, dictatorship, military modes, the senates, consuls, lawyers structure of vertical of the power, oligarchy. Priority of military power and war as the tool of policy. Even governors and provinces - all modern statehood of the world. Only now also the police institute has increased. The USA are more similar to Rome, Africa - is less but the general principle - is uniform.
[/QUOTE]
　
Marat, your belief in God and sin is skewed. God gave us a certain set of Laws, the natural law or the Ten Commandments. These, in short, made man bound to act t others as he would want to be treated, and love God. That's it, but God gave us two things, the most important graces he gives, Reason and Free Will. Free Will is the downfall of God's law by those who have acted upon the impulse of Evil (opposed to God's Law), but with Reason, we, as man, created government to ensure that he was protected from other men. Search for the "ideal" state is not sin, but necessary, and relative as that different groups of men have different cultures and problems. The ideal state exists naught and never will be. We can only create a functioning state.
　
God did not give us form of government to govern ourselves with; And admittingly, as man, we organize, search for knowledge, and apply such knowledge.
　
On the matters of war and military power. May I quote Ecclesiastes 3:8.: "A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace." In critical analysis, this is admiting that man will hate and love, on appropriate times. The same is with war and peace. Yes, the Romans respected the military because look at the time they had existed in. It was very specifically protection and insurance that the military strength would disappear, and then Rome.
　
Military power is necessary for a nation to survive. Tell me that we could have solved Nazi Secret Extermination without it. War is a necessary as that it is sometimes the only way to solve a problem. I will admit that War is overused as a word, and War should and ought to be used in extreme or there is no other possible solution.
　
Roman government is one of the most successful government forms. Yes, the Roman Republic fell due to a dictator, but i'll get to that later. I digress; firstly, i will describe the government, but that would be very difficult because their government was purposely successfully. Here is a hyperlink to it, and it is not mine... [http://www.uoregon.edu/~klio/maps/rr/const_system.jpg]. Their government was very stable.
　
There is many aspects of their government that wasn't taken i.e. Collegeity (where two people hold the same office at the same time and switch out every time period throughout their term, the Century Assembly, the Fusion of the Executive and Judicial Branches (Assemblies were the juries.), and so on.
　
The Roman Republic was very much so acclaimed by the Framers because of the longevity of the system and stability as well, but the RR was the only influence; Israelite Government from the Bible and the Anglo-Saxon Government.
　
Democracy was not invented or even used by the Romans. I believe Athens made the system. Dictatorship was used by the Romans to manage war-times. The position was appointed by the Senate when there was war, and the position only lasted six-months for that person. This system was used successfully, but when Julius Caesar became Dictator he never withdrew from power until a Senator killed him to try to restore the Republic which was an illusion for the whole time Caesar was in power to pacify the people.
Why did you compare our debate about government to the construction of the New Babylon which exists right before the end-times? New Babylon will be created when a dragon will hunt down a pregnant woman; and, did we even mention that God doesn't have a place in our forms of government? God exists to exist and then created man, and such means that he is necessary for and to us . If there is a God, then a government isn't the ultimate power, the provider of rights? I like that idea.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

You can read of democracy in action, but the only real example is two married people deciding on where to go on vacation... The measure their love, they measure their resources, and then they see what is possible that they can both agree on it...Democracy is not majority rule...No form of rule is democracy...

0 Replies

@the republican,

the republican;138796 wrote:

I see your point that corrupt individuals are bad, too. Sadly those people have no power or affect little to some people, but governmental power is massively powerful as the people under it agree to submit to it. Those who are corrupt in monopolies are just as bad. Government is plainly to powerful, even limited strictly.
　

Remember it is not a partnership if you are an employee. Even as this seems as dehumanizing thing, employees are simply a resource for the employer to gain wealth in exchange for a wage for that employee. That is reality of capitalism. If you dislike that you do not gain from your labor, then why hold yourself back, follow that ambition. Capitalism is built upon individuals gaining wealth, using that wealth to gain more by increasing their business which necessarily needs labor, and the cycle will go on. Making the economy larger.
I never called or meant to call democracy the creator of dependency. Democracy is the people, guided by a majority (consensus and supermajority is difficult to get, and minority is just stupid to let guide), instead of a government of representatives or governing class. Democracy holds no limits upon the majority, and that leads to oppression by the majority. Democracy is just a government of the majority.

On the matter of capitalism, it is too difficult to explain as it has too many aspects, if you want to figure out what it is, read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

I agree that the U.N. is not world government as it has no sovereignty over any jurisdiction, but it is a stepping stone towards a global governance. And, a common market and environment can not bind people together; they bound by nationalty, race, ancestry, and heredity.
Honestly, are you going put in environmental "injustice" in here? Before our time, some waterways were so polluted that the water caught fire or that no one could drink it. How can we compare to that? Could you give me examples of the destruction you talk about?

On the subject of war, war is a necessary evil. War is the sometimes the only answer that can end a problem between two nations as diplomatic compromises would not always create peace. War is the only way to assert dominance and power over another nation. Even though this is grim it is true. Diplomacy can go so far. The best is total isolation or being stronger than your enemies.

You and i can agree that the government should be by the consent of the governed. Sadly, that is the last agreement we can make on government.
On the matter of a dependent class, this is a class that can suck dry the weatlth of any society. When charity is institutionalized as welfare, a dependant class is created out of the desire to gain without working. When the working class, who provides for this welfare and creates welfare, decides that it has gained nothing or little, they will join the welfare for the easy money. Then there is no wealth to suck off of. This is how people function, to create for their own benefit. Would any of you do everything for the benefit of society, not including yourself?

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 09:12 PM ----------

Government is a popular, public institution, which is established for the common benefit of the governed and under their consent and power of the governed. This is just an extension of this society, and has no right or just power to orgainze and order the society. It is only the members of the soceity that have that right to order and organize the society, either that be through government or custom.

Constitutional democracies limit the power of any seated majority. Our system is so bloated and slow that can limits the damage any majority can do while it's the majority, anyway. I don't see that as being a major problem for us. Though I think I agree that we'd be better of as a confederation of States here in the U.S. rather than so federal.

Your 4th paragraph is where I find most of my objections. The common market and environment are exactly what should bind people. Nationality, race, ancestry, and heredity are superficial with little indication or relevance in the grand scheme of things. With the exception of nationality, we're all intermixed in race, ancestry, and heredity, and at the end of the day we're all humans. Why should things as unimportant as ancestry be how our society is divided?

The global economy and environment are what unites us, as steps need to be taken to protect both of those things. If that requires a world government that oversees a confederation of nation-states, I'm ok with that.

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

[QUOTE=Fido;163698]You can read of democracy in action, but the only real example is two married people deciding on where to go on vacation... The measure their love, they measure their resources, and then they see what is possible that they can both agree on it...Democracy is not majority rule...No form of rule is democracy...[/quote]

First thing first. Democracy was developed by the Greeks to be an opposite of the aristocracies and oligarchies which there was various reasons why they distrusted those government and rulers. Probably mostly because of their previous rulers. But i digress, they formed Democracy, so that everyone could rule. In a complex system of councils and sortitioned appointments, their democracy became into the control of the poor, the majority of the electorate. This was natural to happen the athenians were mostly not affluent, so that class was very large, and somewhat united by their hate of the "rich". So on, this system became very susceptible to demogoguery and factioning because the legislature room was literally everywhere, because of the "stigma" that they placed on each other according to their political ideals. After in-fighting about domestic and foreign affairs, the stability began to decay. Foreign affiairs was simply a mess with those who had certain connections with other city-states, et cetera; wars were pretty unpopular because it took away from the poor, mainly food and resources. Remember, the poor still controlled the government with nothing to stop them, excluding some checks, but those weren't absolute.

To your married couple example, may i say that in a sense a marriage is based upon comprise, but because of their innumerable love for each other they don't hate the other. And if you add compromise with people you don't particularly like then you'll try to debunk to make you look better (or, you could leave, ignore it, or go and battle them). So the form of consensus amongst large amounts of people is very difficult, because everyone won't get their point across or object, dislike something, and so on. People are naturally self-preserving; and, the claim you're making is extremely different from "countrymen" love and "married couple" love. Two different types of love.

Now to your "...Democracy is not majority rule...No form of rule is democracy..." statement, this is essentially killing your own arguement. This forum is about discussing the best form of government, and government is defined as "System of authority in a political unit, the exercise of polical pwer over a sovereignty, or a system or policy by which a political unit is governed." More simply, the organization that exercises ruling authority over a body of people. So what you are saying that Democracy is not a government.
　
[QUOTE=Rwa001;163714]Constitutional democracies limit the power of any seated majority. Our system is so bloated and slow that can limits the damage any majority can do while it's the majority, anyway. I don't see that as being a major problem for us. Though I think I agree that we'd be better of as a confederation of States here in the U.S. rather than so federal.[/quote][QUOTE=Rwa001;163714]
Your 4th paragraph is where I find most of my objections. The common market and environment are exactly what should bind people. Nationality, race, ancestry, and heredity are superficial with little indication or relevance in the grand scheme of things. With the exception of nationality, we're all intermixed in race, ancestry, and heredity, and at the end of the day we're all humans. Why should things as unimportant as ancestry be how our society is divided?
The global economy and environment are what unites us, as steps need to be taken to protect both of those things. If that requires a world government that oversees a confederation of nation-states, I'm ok with that.[/QUOTE]
　
The first sentence of your first paragraph---A constitution of a constitutional democracy can be changed by the majority.
　
The second and third sentence of the same paragraph---The United States' federal government is a republic, not a democracy; this system was created out of the hate of democracy and was founded upon the idea of completely checked government that would be slow. Also, the United States' federal government was created to make seperate nations stronger, being together, and lessen the fighting amongst them. It wasn't originally or intended to be anything not that.
　
The fourth sentence of your first paragraph---At least, we agree here; the current constitution is a confederal in nature. I wish that they kept the Articles of Confederation, but amended it. Those federalists, how i disfavor your political ideas of national government!

The second paragraph---
　
Yes, ideally that would be perfect, yet idealism is forgetting about our sociological tendencies. People collect them with people they have the most similarities with. That's it. We are intermixture of heredity, race, and ancestry, but that's only U.S.A. in its peak. No other country or nation on the planet that is such a mix. Then what binds us? Culture (which admittingly should have added in that post with language and religion.). Please, the U.S.A. are a confederation of states built upon different ideals, conceptions, and even religion, so that's what makes these States wonderful. People could move to people they were similar with, but we do have united culture which is what those people must assimilate to, so that there isn't friction. This culture must be open to people, who won't destroy this way of life. How could two cultures be together without conflict?
　
Race has been transformed into a bad word, but our genetics has been developed according to this. Each race evolved according to their society and the environment they lived in. Race is still ficial and adapted nature and charateristics. Racist were dumb enough to believe that one race was superior to another which none are, just adapted differently.
　
Heredity is family. All you have in the end is family, and that is the only group of people which ought and is (by most) held sacred. Well, the family is the smallest unit in a society and inherintly from another, so it is naturally the best way to divide.

Ancestry and Nationality is interrelated because of some psychological tie to a certain country which most likely their ancestors' country as well. As i said, the United States are an exceptional thing aforementioned.
　
People organized, organize, and will organize with those characteristics (maybe not always on race). Language is a very strong divider and seperater as well as culture.

The last paragraph---First to the connection with a global economy and environment....

The global economy that we have today hasn't been around for more than fifty years. This interdependence never existed before because nations had to take care of themselves and was created to prevent war. This was through that when a war, the kind that basically destroyed the enemy and not today's wars, was enacted and ensued would essentially destroy a nation's economy that in this system would drag down everyone else. This meant that a nation would destroy their economy if they did war against another. This has nothing inherent to evade this. One nation going into a depression. This would drag everyone else down the same way. You may be thinking that this could be solved through "stimilus" packages from the government; that would make this chain.

Government spends for stimulus, temporary jobs are made (as that these are public projects that last), those jobs cost money, this money is not created by the government (if you don't think this than you shouldn't be here) just taxed away from people, the people already in a depression have little money anyway, more people become insolvent because they can't pay for those stimulus jobs, and money for those jobs run out. After that, either the government prints more money which in our fiat currency system would devalue the money so worsening the depression, or they end the jobs which worsen the umployment and then the depression (the government may repeat the cycle).

I simplified it, but that's generally it. Do not say that the New Deal is the exception; the Great Depression was ended by World War II. Look at the Depression of 1920 in the United States. This proves that the boom and bust cycle of the capitalist system can be solved by the same system because the system essentially makes people be proper in their budgeting and economic behaviours which will solve the economic depressing behaviour.

Upon the unity creation...

Unity cannot and has not been concieved by economy and environment. Tell me how did and could those ever connect people ever? Please don't say that we're all humans and have this one planet because that has never united anyone and is pretty faulty. This is reasoned by that people being self-interested in an economy will divide themselves up. An environment is like saying that because i'm in a building with other and solely because of that i should hold hands with them. The EU is the best model of international governance that we have as it has sovereignty and jurisdiction, and how is that working out? Ask a Greek.

Tell me, how would this function even in semblence when nations hate each other, have different ideals and ideas, and are groupings of peoples that have a similarity? Groups of completely different people will always have conflict, and have a pretty much did that to solve their own problems within their territory. Obviously you like the democractic model, wouldn't that mean India and China control that government? Remember the tendencies of those who have power: they want more or better themselves by reaping the benefits of power? If such a democractic system was global wouldn't then nations try to make their populations larger to get more power?

0 Replies

@wayne,

wayne;162868 wrote:

But in America you do have that option. All it takes is a little change in perception.
The government is kind of like the lion you know is in the jungle with you.
As long as you pay him the necessary tribute and stay out of his way he pretty much leaves you alone.

Unfourtunatley, the lion is usually an idiot. He also has a tendency to push any other lions out of his jungle and likes to tell you what to do. America decided it didnt want to be a lion anymore during the industrial revolution and has made it quite clear that he would rather become a dragon that eats and controls whatever passerby is brave enough to try to slay it. Lions have long been extinct, and the jungles have been all cut down.

Republican: after reading your latest speil, it almost sounds like you want a form a fuedalism within the states ( although you subtracted Serfdom and Monarchy). That is your grouping similar people together based on characteristics. This worked with the Greeks (im not just talking about Athens), but in todays world it would mean taking a step back in culture. There are to many factors that go against that ideal and not everybody would except it. Things are different from even 20 years ago. The next generation is being ardently pushed to ignore individuals, they are designed to follow and obey. They are direct contradictions to your plan. But the most olbvious problem to your "cultural divisions", is that the world is to damn small for it. Something needs to shrink before this could be acheived.

( Sorry, but Im a skeptic. I loved most of your article except for this part.)

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

One reason why I advocate Internet voting for all US elections is that it will help to further educate the electorate. Suppose there are a dozen candidates for office -- lets say the presidency. Why just have two?

Imagine: watch a series of elimination debates online or on TV. After each debate, go to your state's voting website. Get checked for registration, and vote.

The exposure to a lot of different views will help elevate the political sophistication of us all. Check out my page here for more info!

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 03:56 PM ----------

The elimination series of debates would also empower the voter more than one vote in November. Empowered people participate with more interest and in greater number than alienated, powerless people do.

I think the best measure of a democracy's authenticity is the feeling of real empowerment that individuals experience. With more or less half the eligible voters participating in US elections, the implication is clear that far too many folks feel alienated.

Our "democracy" is a glass half full at best.

0 Replies

@the republican,

the republican;162242 wrote:

That is strangely a way to solve corruption by even a worse form of corruption. That is even worse than lobbyism. This suggestion, a very interesting one as it is, will eventually create an aristocracy or rule of the rich, but your idea of raising to support a position is a very good idea. Still rough and needing of certain clarifications is brilliant if applied to governmental programs. As I like this idea, there is some problems: what would happenb if no money is raised? How will the money be appropriated and by whom? What if no money is made for any position? What would happen to the money of the opposing position? Would the money have to be promised or actually given? How would corruption in the raising of such money be weeded out? Would the money solely go to the program? I like this idea, but could you expand on it.

It wasn't meant all serious. The point was that there always seems to be some coercive authority that acts in it's self-interest. If we try to get around that with a democracy, then the incumbent merely have to convince a majority of the unwashed masses to want what benefits the incumbent.
Auctioning off political decisions instead of voting for them would mean that we have an aristocracy in the same way, just that the aristocracy have to pay for it themselves. In the current system the rest of us pay for it because we pretend decisions are being made by "the people".

the republican;162242 wrote:

Sadly, taxes are an absolute about government because there is a need to keep government running. I dispise taxes, but the sad thing is as we agreed to the social contract our posterity is bound to it too. The method and the amount of taxes should be severely limited to the point of nonexistence and appropriation of the money should be also limited. If taxes are small, government will be small or extremely effecient with the money.

A tax is a payment levied by the government without reference to a specific benefit received, even if it is compulsory. In that sense there don't have to be taxes. If payments to the government are with reference to a specific benefit received, it does not count as a tax, even if the person did not want that benefit.
There are benefits, that you can individually opt out of, such as unemployment benefits, and then you should be able to opt out of paying for them. Other benefits, like national defense, you receive even if you don't believe you need them.
Society should decide whether we need it by some process, preferably democracy, and then there should be a national defense tax. In that way all payments levied by the government should have a reference to a specific benefit received.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Yes Nero the benefit received should be by common consent, like the fire service and health treatment.:sarcastic:

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;166515 wrote:

Yes Nero the benefit received should be by common consent, like the fire service and health treatment.:sarcastic:

All you did with this statement is give us fine crafted examples of why that is such a horrible idea. I followed your Capitalist fight, and maybe you should keep your bickering with Nero to a minimum within this post.

1 Reply

What Is the Best Form of Government?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know