Please help. It's for a class. Answer 1 or all of 4 questions.

@Cyracuz,

I'll respond more on that with my thoughts, but I have to leave the library, so it'll just take some time for me to get home. I'll be right back.

1 Reply

@Carpedamnum,

I am also going out soon. But post your thoughts. Smile

0 Replies

@Carpedamnum,

Carpedamnum wrote:

What, in your opinion, is the best type of government for a nation?
What is the best type of government for you individually?
What type of government is, in your opinion, best for politics?
If you could create your own form of government, what would it be like? Detail, please.

Thank you so much to anyone that is willing to help me! I really appreciate it!

What I don't understand is why, since all the questions are matters of your opinion, and there is no right or wrong, why you would need help, and what sort of help could anyone give you?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Oh, in that case, I don't mind sharing a few thoughts.

I think it was Gandhi who said something like: "The state is goverened the best that is governed the least".

In my opinion, the best government is one founded upon and run according to principles of morality and humanism. (There are many governments that claim to work like this today, but they are merely making the best of the situation, following morality and humanism only when capitalistic interests allow for it.)

The best government for me is one that understands that a government isn't ment to rule, but to administrate.

The government that would be best for politics would be one that didn't require politicians.

If I could create my own government I would gather the leading experts in all fields of science and technological development, the highest spiritual authorities (among humans), the best economists... In short, I would gather people who had actual, relevant expertise and seek their council in forming a system of government. Because politicians don't solve probems. Technology does, and the best way to use it to the benefit of everyone isn't best determined by politicians, but by the technicians that developed it, the economists that know how to build economies, and the spiritual leaders of our world.
And I put it as a fundamental requirement for this system that it should not inspire people to act with selfish interests (as is the case today), but rather create a society where the greatest rewards could be gained through selfless acts.

I think it was Gandhi who said something like: "The state is goverened the best that is governed the least".

Thomas Paine.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

When it comes to how much a group of voters can affect, the public is clueless. It's not "fun" enough, so the public gets disinterested.
Making it a criminal offense sounds like a viable plan, as long as there are measures taken to ensure the voters are well informed.
I love the idea of having one big voting network! The information that it would possess and convey would be fantastic!
I say, we eliminate the political parties altogether. People are voting the party line, for no other reason than the general overview of the parties' values. The party shouldn't be where you get the values from, it should be the individuals running for office. The network could have sub networks for each state, and another for each town, and so on. I think I'd make some of the town votes alright to miss though. Elections for mayor, city council, school board would still be mandatory, but who gives a hell about what color the Christmas lights are this year? I think global, continental, and national issues really hold more precedence, and thus should be mandatory.

I don't think that it would be a non-existent government, I think it'd bring society one step closer to achieving a hive mind.

3 Replies

@kennethamy,

The assignment was to get other peoples' opinions and combine them into one "perfect" government based on how many commonalities each form of government has with others. You wouldn't be doing my homework. You would BE my homework.

1 Reply

@Carpedamnum,

There are many issues connected with making it illegal not to vote. It would be better if it was socially unacceptable, in the same way racism is becoming socially unacceptable.
But if the sceptics are right in that humans don't really care about anything but themselves, no amount of availability of information and oportunity to act would make much difference.

0 Replies

@Carpedamnum,

Carpedamnum wrote:

I don't think that it would be a non-existent government, I think it'd bring society one step closer to achieving a hive mind.

one step closer to achieving a hive mindThink you lack something in your equation. The quality of a "hive mind" is that there are no defunct individuals, where in wild nature such are discarded as a counterproductive burden, where in higher intelligent social groups with individualistic behaviour, counterproductive behaviour can be better tolerated.

I would prefer an exclusive group, with sound mentallity, without those who are emotional, without idiots, retards, demagogues ..etc.

1 Reply

@Carpedamnum,

Carpedamnum wrote:

What, in your opinion, is the best type of government for a nation?

Unfortunaly Democracy, it's the most stable platform of goverment, as the successor part is not as critical as in a dictator regime.

Carpedamnum wrote:

What is the best type of government for you individually?

Also Democracy, everybody for the most time has the free oppotunity to speak their mind.

Carpedamnum wrote:

What type of government is, in your opinion, best for politics?

Democrasy?

Carpedamnum wrote:

If you could create your own form of government, what would it be like? Detail, please.

Unfortunaly it's not possible yet, but it would be a android goverment, which doesn't get paranoid, are without human emotions which are freed from greed, anger, fear, hate, love, comradery ..etc.

It would be possible to be fairly objective and neutral on most matters.
..only that way we can achive world peace, no pollution ..a dream world!

0 Replies

@Carpedamnum,

Carpedamnum wrote:

The assignment was to get other peoples' opinions and combine them into one "perfect" government based on how many commonalities each form of government has with others. You wouldn't be doing my homework. You would BE my homework.

Oh, in that case, it is hard to imagine a dumber question.

0 Replies

That was pretty snotty. The questions aren't dumb, except in so far as they refer to the people responding.

1 Reply

@Carpedamnum,

The best type of government for a nation is one that is fundamentally constructed to act, only, in the best interests of the governed; within a framework that balances maxium accountability and minimum instability. A representative democracy, it seems to me, best fits the bill.

It is also one in which power is dispersed in such a way that it is difficult for centralized government to make significant and long term changes to the way of life of the individuals governed, and yet rapidly efficient in responding to limited and well defined emergencies. Dual federalism, in my opinion, best fits this bill.

Assuming that I will never receive a mandate to rule as a dictator or be allowed the sole discretion in selecting one, the government that is best for the nation (described above) is the best for me individually.

I'm not sure what you mean by "best for politics," but whatever form of government requires the greatest number of parties to enable it to act is the one most heavily dependent upon politics.

Given the power sufficent to remake the current government, I would not squander it on trivialities like accountability, representation, or politics. I would immediately get to the job of making everything good and right as the first and most benign American dictator.

Actually, there are really no fundamental changes I would make to the exisiting form of the US government, although some of the changes I would make (like reducing the scope and size of the federal government) would no doubt be perceived as extreme or radical by certain others.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

Quote:

I would prefer an exclusive group, with sound mentallity, without those who are emotional, without idiots, retards, demagogues ..etc.

Hitler said the same thing. Only, instead of idiots, retards etc he said jews, gypsies etc...

0 Replies

@Carpedamnum,

Carpedamnum wrote:

I think it'd bring society one step closer to achieving a hive mind.

Which is just the goal we should be pursuing...

If someone is not interested in spending the very modest amount of time and energy to physically exercise a right which billions of their fellow humans crave and are denied, and which need serve only their own narrow personal interests, do you think they will spend any time becoming informed?

Just how would your voting network "ensure" that voters will be informed? Would you propose making it illegal not to "study" the information provided by the Network? Would citizens be fined if they didn't pass Network quizzes?

More taxes to pay more people to tell us what we have to do and then punish us when we don't. Now that's just the sort of feature needed in the "best form of government."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Future kings would be chosen through a tremendously complex and potentially lethal version of the Olympics; only those with the ability to excel in tests of strength, intelligence and morality will make it to the final Battle Royal, held every four years.

That's a method Sir James Frazer discusses in The Golden Bough. The King of the Wood. The "tremendously complex" is just the modern liberal's chosen method.

You could have a reality game show. I am King--get me out of here. Viewers voting to eliminate candidates until only one is left.

On the questions--

1--It depends on what type of nation.

2--That it sends £10 grand a week to anybody whose username begins and ends with an "s" and has an "n" and a "d" equidistant from the "s"s. And contains 3 vowels.

3--That depends on who won the election.

4--I would only allow women to vote and male chauvinism would be illegal.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I don't want to undermine your confidence in your betters Carpe but you might wonder why you are being asked idiotic questions.

A pal of mine visited the US earlier this year and the first question the security services asked him was "Are you a terrorist or have links with a terrorist organisation?"

1 Reply

@spendius,

Take the best of it...at least who knows, on the process they might get the histerical dumb terrorists...

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

4--I would only allow women to vote and male chauvinism would be illegal.

That's half of a futuristic prediction in a Sci-Fi book which I think is called 2183. The other half is that old crimes like witchcraft reappear. I don't know anything about it. It was quoted in another book I read.

I hope you didn't think I made anything as daft as that up.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That was pretty snotty. The questions aren't dumb, except in so far as they refer to the people responding.

What is the point of them? Some kind of opinion survey? What is the point of that?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Information gathering. It's a large occupational category for the lower-middle class which has majored in an 'ology and is in need of validation at the base of certain power structures. It is trying to pretend it's in control and understands what's going on.

It's also an alternative to teaching.

1 Reply

Please help. It's for a class. Answer 1 or all of 4 questions.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know